Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 09:24:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> 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. > >> We bounce them back to the author pretty m uch every time with "context >> diff please". > > We have, and will continue to, bounce patches that arrive as whole files > or no-context-lines patches. But I know we've taken unidiffs without > complaint. Personally, if I have to read one that's more than isolated > one-line changes, I apply it locally and then use "cvs diff -c" to get a > version I can read ... which makes unidiff only a minor annoyance *as > long as it applies cleanly*. If it doesn't then it's a PITA ...
You can use "filterdiff -v --format=context". Or emacs's built in command to do the conversion. Because it's easy to convert from one to another, I think the unified vs. context diff issue is a non-issue. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(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
