Thread: diff -c please

This is a time when many patches are arriving, so reviewing patches
efficiently is important.

My understanding was that diff -c was the only approved patch submission
format, but I note at least 3 people have submitted patches in other
formats in the last week.

It often seems like there's only a few people on the lists, but many
people are watching. Sticking to diff -c format helps those people to
review and comment back.

I've not always done this myself, so forgive me for casting the first
stone. This isn't aimed at anyone, just a general comment.

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Simon Riggs wrote:
> I note at least 3 people have submitted patches in other
> formats in the last week.

I'm one of the guilty parties (as is Gavin, I'd imagine). As I explained
in an earlier mail to -patches, the reason I've been submitting unified
diffs is that Gavin and I have been using the Monotone version control
system for development, and at present it only generates unified diffs.
I've been meaning to submit a fix for that -- I'll send the Monotone
folks a patch adding context diff support on Monday or Tuesday. So I
pledge to stop sending unified diffs ASAP :)

(BTW, I actually find unified diffs much easier to read. But since the
consensus is apparently to prefer context diffs, I'm happy to oblige.)

-Neil

On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 11:55, Neil Conway wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I note at least 3 people have submitted patches in other
> > formats in the last week.
>
> I'm one of the guilty parties (as is Gavin, I'd imagine).

I didn't read your earlier reasons, I apologise.

My own patches had better be faultless now, eh?

--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs