Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Junio C Hamano schrieb: >> René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> I think it makes sense to make 1, or even 3, the default for this >>> option for all commands that create patches intended for human >>> consumption. The patch keeps the default at 0, though. >> >> I think defaulting to 1 would make sense, or alternatively, just >> hardcoding that behaviour without any new option. That would give you >> more information with the same number of patch lines, iow, upside without >> any downside. > > Are you sure about the "without any downside" part? The extra context line > inhibits that the patch applies cleanly to a version of the file that has > that very line modified (including a different number of lines). Yeah. René wanted this for _human consumption_, not mechanical patch application, so "hardcoding" literally there in the very low level of the diff callchain is not quite right (it would affect format-patch which is primarily for mechanical application). I guess you could make the hardcoded value 1 for everybody else and 0 for format-patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
