"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "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.
It seems hard to believe this would be a hard problem to overcome. It's not like either format contains more or less information than the other. In fact Emacs's diff-mode can convert between them on the fly. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
