tl;dr I am happy to redo the patches. On 6/30/21 1:12 AM, David Newall wrote: > I rely on diff to see what is different between two versions, and not > necessarily > consecutive versions. It is an immensely effective technique for > finding where > something became broken. I also rely on that. I agree completely it is immensely effective. I split the change in two commits precisely because I also care about legible diffs. But I recognize there are many opinions on how best to achieve that. I am happy to try it another way. > Diffs like that which John proposes add noise, dramatically increasing > the effort > required to see real changes. Did he simply change indent or did he > also change > text? I can't tell at a glance. The nature of the change is putting a decent chunk of existing autoconf m4 within a newly-introduced if-then-else. That means either the indention will become wrong, or there will be some churn/noise reindenting the old code. I chose to reindent first, making on odd 2x indent, and then add the new code and if-then-else, also fixing the indent. Another option would be to switch the order of the two patches: making the meaningful change without touching the old code, and then indenting the old code another level. A third option would be to simply do the first of those to patches, making the minimal change and then leaving the indentation incorrect. I am happy to resubmit the patches broken down according to either of those 2 alternatives, or any other alternative. John _______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
