From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
Date: | 2007-10-24 13:38:14 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0710240638p73caeffav2a19ac16d11728e2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/24/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-24 13:49:51 | Re: second DML operation fails with updatable cursor |
Previous Message | Germán Poó-Caamaño | 2007-10-24 13:36:15 | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |