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

From: Rafael Ascensão <rafa.almas@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 27, 2018, 20:40 UTC
Message-ID: <20180927204049.GA2628@rigel>
In-Reply-To: <CAC05385d=1s_qidC4uLdRAqUNaP7jwYTjfxHtGrmBDJ54F8pRA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:16:19PM -0700, Nickolai Belakovski wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

>
> Not to hijack my own thread, but FWIW git branch -r shows remote
> branches in red, but old/new status of a remote branch is ambiguous
> (could have new stuff, could be out of date). Also, git branch -vv
> shows remote tracking branches in blue. One could argue it should be
> red since git branch -r is in red.
>

For me remote branches being red means: they're here but you cannot write to them. They are like 'read-only/disabled' branches. Under this interpretation red makes sense.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>
> E.g. I thought green here made sense because in "diff" we show the
> old/new as red/green, so the branch you're on is "new" in the same
> sense, i.e. it's what your current state is.
>

I still defend using green and dim green for this case. Because all these worktrees are in a sense active. They're checked out in some place. It's just the case that the particular one that we are in is probably more relevant than the others.

-- Cheers Rafael Ascensão