Re: [PATCH] branch: colorize branches checked out in a linked working tree the same way as the current branch is colorized

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 27, 2018, 19:35 UTC
Message-ID: <20180927193559.GB6950@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20180927192804.GA27163@rigel>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:28:04PM +0100, Rafael Ascensão wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:17:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > Do we want to limit this to git-branch, though? Ideally any output you
> > get from git-branch could be replicated with for-each-ref (or with
> > a custom "branch --format").
> > 
> > I.e., could we have a format in ref-filter that matches HEAD, but
> > returns a distinct symbol for a worktree HEAD? That would allow a few
> > things:
> 
> I was going to suggest using dim green and green for elsewhere and here
> respectively, in a similar way how range-diff uses it to show different
> versions of the same diff.

Yeah, I think that's reasonable, and would be enabled by the %(worktree) placeholder I showed. Just like we do something like:

  %(if)%(HEAD)%(then)* %(color:green)%(else)  %(end)

now, we could do:

  %(if)%(HEAD)%(then)* %(color:bold green)
  %(else)%(if)%(worktree)%(then)+ %(color:green)
  %(else)  %(end)%(end)

(respecting the user's color config, of course, rather than hard-coded colors).

Trying that out, though, I'm not sure if we properly support nested if's. That might be a bug we have to fix first.

> But if we're open to change how branches are displayed maybe a config
> option like branch.format (probably not the best name choice) that can
> be set to the 'for-each-ref --format' syntax would be way more flexible.

We have that already, don't we?

> I think the different symbol and dimmed color would be a nice addition,
> but I am leaning towards giving the user the ultimate choice on how they
> want to format their output. (Maybe with dimmed plus symbol as default).

Definitely.

-Peff