From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: diff-mode doesn't like "-c0" or "-u0" diff output for single-line changes Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:06:14 +0900 Message-ID: <87odg6couh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <87d4wp1yb7.fsf@gnuvola.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1189713966 5574 80.91.229.12 (13 Sep 2007 20:06:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chris Moore , Thien-Thi Nguyen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 13 22:06:02 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IVuwl-00019B-1O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:05:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVuwk-0005JF-AK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:05:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IVuwh-0005JA-R9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IVuwc-0005GS-3z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:05:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IVuwb-0005GM-W8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:05:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.223]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IVuwb-0001QV-EK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:05:45 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (unknown [130.158.99.156]) by mtps01.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7F91535AE; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:05:43 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8916E1A2E11; Fri, 14 Sep 2007 05:06:15 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" (+CVS-20070621) XEmacs Lucid X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:78803 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: > Thanks. But I still wonder: why would anybody use "-c0" or "-u0"? For ChangeLogs, which rarely apply if they have any context. The unidiff format is preferred by XEmacs because it provides the headers which identify the ChangeLog exactly. I don't think it hurts that all patches are in the same format. Not a big deal, but since it's trivial to do, why not? > If you don't want context, then you're better off with the plain or `ed' > diff formats, no? If you remember how to read them. :-) I only ever see those in patch .rej files.