* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> True, but I'm with Heikki: it's a pedantic and unhelpful guideline. > > > Then let's change it, drop the preference, and update the documentation. > > I think we should drop the hard requirement for context-format, and > instead say that it must not be plain (context-free) diff, since that > clearly *is* a hard requirement.
Alright, I'll start making those changes.
> However, I liked the upthread suggestion (I think it was from Heikki)
> that we recommend that submitters actually take a moment to think about
> which format is more readable for their particular patch. Readability
> is important not only to help people who just give the patch a quick
> eyeball, but also to help the inevitable situations where hunks have
> to be applied by hand because the underlying code has changed. The
> less readable the patch, the more likely an error in doing that.
> (And I trust we've all learned by now that git isn't so good at merging
> that this isn't a problem.)
I'll include that point in my changes but I consider the chances of that
actually happening with any regularity to be essentially zero. Reducing
our requirement to a level where the default passes means that nearly
everyone, who hasn't already changed things to use a non-default
automatically, is going to just use the default.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
