"Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> 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.
regards, tom lane
