On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in > <26718.1516070...@sss.pgh.pa.us> >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is totally >> > harmless, I'm not sure why you should need to devote any effort to >> > avoiding it. Anyone who gets it should just ignore it. > > I know that and totally agree to Robert but still I wonder why > (and am annoyed by) I sometimes receive such complain or even an > accusation that I sent an out-of-the-convention patch and I was > afraid that it is not actually common.
I've seen that before as well. I have also noticed people complaining about patches that apply "with offsets", which also seems like needless nitpicking. If the offsets are large and the patch has been sitting around for a long time, there's a small chance it could be applying to the wrong place, but that is extremely rare. Most patches have small offsets, just a few lines, and there is no problem. Complaining about the offsets, on the other hand, is unhelpful: it not only forces the patch author to update the patch for no good reason, but it clutters the mailing list with useless traffic that everyone else has to ignore. I think we should have a firm policy that if patch -p1 can apply your patch, your patch is sufficiently well-formatted. If someone wants the result as a context diff, a unified diff, with one kind of line endings vs. another, or whatever, they can apply the patch locally and use whatever tools they like to get a diff in the format they prefer. When posting large patch stacks, 'git format-patch' is nice because it lets you give a sequence number and a commit message to each patch in a sensible way. I recommend it, but I don't think we should insist on it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company