From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 10 21:23:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from pebkac.owp.csus.edu (pebkac.owp.csus.edu [130.86.232.245]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D01737B718 for ; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:23:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu) Received: from localhost (scottj@localhost) by pebkac.owp.csus.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA97091; Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from joseph.scott@owp.csus.edu) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 21:23:40 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Scott X-Sender: scottj@pebkac.owp.csus.edu To: Michael Lucas Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: context or unified diffs in PRs? In-Reply-To: <20010310124249.A87381@blackhelicopters.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, Michael Lucas wrote: > Hello, > > I'm afraid I might be walking up to a bikeshed with a can of paint > here, but the flood of email in the last twenty-four hours has > convinced me to ask. > > In an article O'Reilly published yesterday, I stated (per the > Handbook) that context diffs were the correct way to submit patches > with PRs. I've had several people claim that unified diffs are the > way to go, and that the handbook is just wrong. > > Is the Handbook correct, or are unified diffs preferred? I'll be > happy to fix my article and submit a PR to correct the Handbook if > this is the case. When I read your article I thought that perhaps that was a mistake, but quickly started looking at something else and forgot about it. I'd always thought unified was better, and felt justified after reading this section in the FreeBSD Porter's Handbook http://www.freebsd.org/docs/en/books/porters-handbook/port-upgrading.html third paragraph, where the example diff they use is diff -ruN for upgrading a port. -Joseph To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message