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.
--
marko