Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200602241716.k1OHGwZ13249@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Patch Submission Guidelines (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote: > > ! <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. This unified diff sentence was added recently, because I had a case where I was posting a diff, and a unified version was actually clearer than the context diff version because it was a file were we were changing discrete lines, rather than blocks of code. It might be a small enough number of cases that it isn't worth mentioning, but we have had people say they find unified diffs clearer, so I wanted to mention _where_ unified diffs are clearer, and where they are not. I thought this might encourage people to use content diffs more often if they understood _why_? -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us SRA OSS, Inc. http://www.sraoss.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: