Date:	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:42:43 -0500
Message-Id:	<200012271942.OAA03922@envy.delorie.com>
X-Authentication-Warning:	envy.delorie.com: dj set sender to dj AT envy DOT delorie DOT com using -f
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<5.0.2.1.0.20001227140844.025ada50@pop5.banet.net>
	(pjfarley AT banet DOT net)
Subject:	Re: diff -u
References:	<200012271600 DOT RAA00710 AT father DOT ludd DOT luth DOT se> <5 DOT 0 DOT 2 DOT 1 DOT 0 DOT 20001227140844 DOT 025ada50 AT pop5 DOT banet DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> My vote is for -u.

It's not really a vote.  Either format can be used to apply changes to
the sources, and both have their ups and downs for readability (I use
both, depending on what I'm looking for in the diff).

My only request is to include at least two lines of context (-c2 or
-u2) to cut down on mis-applies.  Personally, I prefer -c for blocks
of multi-line changes, and -u for single-line changes (plus -p to
print function names).

- Raw text -