Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 16 February 2006 00:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > !                 <li>The patch should be generated in contextual diff 
> > > format and
> > > should !          be applicable from the root directory. If you are 
> > > unfamiliar
> > > with !            this, you might find the script
> > > <I>src/tools/makediff/difforig</I> !              useful.  Unified diffs 
> > > are only
> > > preferrable if the file changes are !             single-line changes and 
> > > do not
> > > rely on the surrounding lines.</li>
> >
> > I'd like the policy to be "contextual diffs are preferred", full stop.
> > Unidiffs are more compact but they sacrifice readability of the patch
> > (IMHO anyway) and when you are preparing a patch you should be thinking
> > first in terms of making it readable for the reviewers/committers.
> >
> > Some things that follow along with the readability mandate, and should
> > be brought out somewhere here:
> >   * avoid unnecessary whitespace changes.  They just distract the
> >     reviewer, and your formatting changes will probably not survive
> >     the next pgindent run anyway.
> 
> would diff -c --ignore-space-change be better?

No, because some whitespace changes are important.  For example when you
indent a piece of code one level higher.  The submitter should eyeball
the patch (in diff form) and clean things up when something unexpected
appears, like a no-op whitespace change.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to