From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 01:05:14 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: colorize branches checked out in a linked working tree the same way as the current branch is colorized
Message-ID: <20180928010514.GB11281@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqo9cifxee.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:22:49PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The only comment I have is that I strongly suspect we will regret if
> we used an overly bland "worktree" to a rather narrrow "is this ref
> checked out in any worktree?" when we notice we want to learn other
> things that are related to "worktree".  Other than that, very nicely
> done.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that. %(worktree) was just a placeholder.
Perhaps something like %(worktree-HEAD) would make more sense (the idea
is that it is an extension of the existing %(HEAD) placeholder).

Alternatively, %(HEAD) could return "*" or "+" depending on whether it's
the current worktree head. That would mildly break an existing format
like:

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

since it would start coloring worktree HEADs the same way. It would be
rewritten as:

  %(if:equals=*)%(HEAD)%(then)...real HEAD...
  %(else)%(if:equals=+)%(HEAD)%(then)...worktree HEAD...
  %(else)...regular ref...
  %(end)%(end)

I think that's perhaps nicer, but I'm not sure we want even such a minor
regression.

-Peff