Why are unified diffs only "grudgingly" accepted?

[Michael Hudson]

cg at gaia.cdg.acriter.nl (Cees de Groot) writes:

> Thomas Wouters  <thomas at xs4all.net> said:
> >I think you're being very unfair to Guido and the others who
> >do most of the work on Python: the difference between sending in a context
> >diff and a unified diff is *one character* in a command line, and they *do*
> >accept unified diffs. 
> 
> I think the poster had a point. It's hard to keep a tab on what sort of
> diffs everybody wants. Furthermore, I think it is rude, as a software
> developer, to reject patches because of format nitpicking (yes, I do
> develop open source software so I know that part of the game). The people
> who made the patch did a lot of work for you (as y'all know, a one-liner
> patch can be the result of hours and hours of work), and converting
> between diff type A and diff type B, even without specialized tools,
> is as simple as "patch ...; cvs diff".

I can't think of a time that a patch has been rejected for being in
the "wrong" patch.  I'm pretty sure I've sent patches in in unified
format that got accepted.

(with-rant-level :high
  I also think more time has been spent by *me* writing this post than
  this topic deserves!  Write code, not whinings - if you forget which
  format of patch to use for Python, the most severe response you can
  expect is a polite response asking for the other format.  I think we
  can safely say "You posted your patch in UNIFIED format, not
  CONTEXT!  You absolute cretin!  Your patch will be summarily ignored
  and if you have the temerity to post another patch to Python we will
  send the heavies round to knee-cap you" is, erm, unlikely.)

go-forth-and-contextify-ly y'rs
M.

-- 
  I wouldn't trust the Anglo-Saxons for much anything else.  Given
  they way English is spelled, who could trust them on _anything_ that
  had to do with writing things down, anyway?
                                        -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp