"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> "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.
It seems hard to believe this would be a hard problem to overcome. It's not
like either format contains more or less information than the other. In fact
Emacs's diff-mode can convert between them on the fly.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com