Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> 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
