Re: Patch Submission Guidelines
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch Submission Guidelines |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060216143826.GB5072@surnet.cl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 16 February 2006 00:27, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes: > > > ! <li>The patch should be generated in contextual diff format and > > > should ! be applicable from the root directory. If you are unfamiliar > > > with ! this, you might find the script > > > <I>src/tools/makediff/difforig</I> ! useful. Unified diffs are only > > > preferrable if the file changes are ! single-line changes and do not > > > rely on the surrounding lines.</li> > > > > I'd like the policy to be "contextual diffs are preferred", full stop. > > Unidiffs are more compact but they sacrifice readability of the patch > > (IMHO anyway) and when you are preparing a patch you should be thinking > > first in terms of making it readable for the reviewers/committers. > > > > Some things that follow along with the readability mandate, and should > > be brought out somewhere here: > > * avoid unnecessary whitespace changes. They just distract the > > reviewer, and your formatting changes will probably not survive > > the next pgindent run anyway. > > would diff -c --ignore-space-change be better? No, because some whitespace changes are important. For example when you indent a piece of code one level higher. The submitter should eyeball the patch (in diff form) and clean things up when something unexpected appears, like a no-op whitespace change. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: