From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10459 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2009 15:02:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 10301 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2009 15:02:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_37 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:08 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9F510D41; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16A9105B9; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MIl21-0002ey-9y; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:02:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Joel Brobecker , vladimir@codesourcery.com, chgenly@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb.texinfo patch for -var-list-children (2) Message-ID: <20090622150201.GA10191@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Joel Brobecker , vladimir@codesourcery.com, chgenly@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20090622031832.GA7766@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:42:31AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > So if from now on we are going to request only unified diffs, we > should at least change this text. FWIW, I don't think we should > change this policy because it may prove inconvenient in some > situations (e.g., the Patch utility produces reject files in context > diff format). But that's me. I agree that we should accept context diffs. I (strongly) prefer unified, but there are some cases where a context diff is much easier to read. As for patch, I recently discovered --unified-reject-files - very useful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery