Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2010, #01; Sat, 4)

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Dec 5, 2010, 07:39 UTC
Message-ID: <20101205073938.GB15233@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7voc90wx36.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 10:30:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> * aa/status-hilite-branch (2010-11-18) 1 commit
>  - status: show branchname with a configurable color
> 
> I am indifferent/uninterested; I don't see anything wrong with it, but I
> do not find coloring the field particularly useful myself.

I am not particularly interested, either, but FWIW, the gitcommit syntax highlighting that ships with vim does highlight this, so there are at least other people who think this is a good idea.

However, I'm not sure about the default. The original patch defaulted to magenta. Your fixup defaults to "plain", but that is a regression (albeit a minor one) for people who have status.header set. I think the correct default is "the same as status.header", but that is sadly not trivial to implement because of the way we parse and store colors.

I don't know if it is worth holding up the patch. It is only a regression to the user's eyes, and it is reasonably easy for them to tweak their config.

-Peff