Re: %C(auto) not working as expected

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 10, 2016, 14:28 UTC
Message-ID: <20161010142818.lglwrxpks6l6aqrm@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACsJy8CroyynVMctbPhuVr2VVQB7YyfcxDaMT25BikQ4R4We0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 04:26:18PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> > If we do a revamp of the pretty-formats to bring them more in line with
> > ref-filter (e.g., something like "%(color:red)") maybe that would be an
> > opportunity to make minor adjustments. Though, hmm, it looks like
> > for-each-ref already knows "%(color:red)", and it's unconditional.
> > <sigh> So perhaps we would need to go through some deprecation period or
> > other transition.
> 
> We could add some new tag to change the behavior of all following %C
> tags. Something like %C(tty) maybe (probably a bad name), then
> discourage the use if "%C(auto" for terminal detection?

Yeah, adding a "%C(enable-auto-color)" or something would be backwards compatible and less painful than using "%C(auto)" everywhere. I do wonder if anybody actually _wants_ the "always show color, even if --no-color" behavior. I'm having trouble thinking of a good use for it.

IOW, I'm wondering if anyone would disagree that the current behavior is simply buggy. Reading the thread at:

  http://public-inbox.org/git/7v4njkmq07.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org/

I don't really see any compelling reason against it (there was some question of which config to use, but we already answered that with "%C(auto)", and use the value from the pretty_ctx).

-Peff