Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Marko Kreen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > As we seem discussing developement in general, there is one
> > > obstacle in the way of individual use of DSCMs - context diff
> > > format as only one accepted.
> >
> > Well, that's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a preference.  At least for
> > me, unidiff is vastly harder to read than cdiff for anything much beyond
> > one-line changes.  (For one-liners it's great ;-), but beyond that it
> > intermixes old and new lines too freely.)  That's not merely an
> > impediment to quick review of the patch; if there's any manual
> > patch-merging to be done, it significantly increases the risk of error.
> >
> > I don't recall that we've rejected any patches lately just because they
> > were unidiffs.  But I'd be sad if a large fraction of incoming patches
> > started to be unidiffs.
> Thanks, maybe the DEVFAQ can be changed that both -u and -c are
> accepted but -c is preferred.
> The matter of -c vs. -u is mostly a matter of taste and habit but
> there is also a technical argument - you can always clean up
> hard-to-read unidiff with simple /^-/d.  But there is no simple
> way to make hard-to-read context diff readable.

Context diff shows you the old block and new block in its entirety. 
Unidiff does not, hence the context diff preference.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to