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
