On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Johannes Sixt wrote: > 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). We could start allowing "fuzz" by default in the case of a patch with more context than we'd expect to see. That is, git-apply would ignore context lines more than 3 lines away from any changed lines, sharing the assumption of our patch-generation side that lines that far away don't matter in general. (Now, if people were in the habit of including as context additional lines in fragile locations, this wouldn't be a good assumption, but I doubt anybody would be able to identify such lines to include them). -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
