Marko Kreen wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>>
>
> Thanks, maybe the DEVFAQ can be changed that both -u and -c are
> accepted but -c is preferred.
>
> The matter of -c vs. -u is mostly a matter of taste and habit but
> there is also a technical argument - you can always clean up
> hard-to-read unidiff with simple /^-/d. But there is no simple
> way to make hard-to-read context diff readable.
>
>
I would rather stick generally to one style. It's a question of whose
convenience prevails, the author's or the reviewer's. I think it should
be the reviewer's, and since Tom reviews far more than anyone else his
voice accordingly matters most.
cheers
andrew
