Re: [PATCH 2/2] show color hints based on state of the git tree

From: Simon Oosthoek <soosthoek@nieuwland.nl>
Date: Oct 15, 2012, 10:34 UTC
Message-ID: <507BE6B0.4020306@nieuwland.nl>
In-Reply-To: <507BD3C1.4040807@drmicha.warpmail.net>

On 10/15/2012 11:13 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:

>
> It really doesn't matter much what works for you, and it doesn't matter
> what works for me either. The point is: What works for most users?

Obviously, that was my point as well ;-)

Show 7 quoted lines

>> I'm quite unfamiliar with the color coding of git (I hadn't enabled that
>> option), I suppose consistency would be better, but then you'd have to
>> add some code to figure out which color is used for what in git's output
>> and convert that to the code setting the colors here.
>
> As a starter, you could use the default colors which git uses. Querying
> git for the colors could be the next, optional step.

I suppose it would be a start.

so how should it be?

all committed: green branch, no characters only staged changes: green branch, colored characters (yellow/red?) only unstaged changes: red/yellow branch, colored characters (red) staged and unstaged changes: red/yellow branch, multiple characters in red/yellow?) detached head: red commit-sha1 (abbrev.), characters as above?

What is the most useful thing to show in case of a detached head? -the commit hash of current head? -"detached head"

Show 11 quoted lines

>
>> As for the characters used, I think there's a good reason not to use the
>> ones git uses in the prompt. The characters in git status output are put
>> in front of the files they apply to, in the prompt you only get a
>> summarized output. And perhaps that argument could be extended to the
>> use of the colors as well, I prefer to know whether I have uncommitted
>> changes and in that category I want to know whether I already staged
>> them or not.
>
> Well, sure. The prompt could show any of AMCRD if you have any of those
> changes. * + are shortcuts saying you have any of those.

How do you suppose that should work? Add another configuration parameter like GIT_PS1_SHOWSTATUSSBCHARS (please give a better suggestion ;-) or the other way around GIT_PS1_SHOWSTARPLUS (either of which could be the default)

Show 12 quoted lines

>>> I think it's very confusing to have completely different schemes (not
>>> just themes) for two versions of the same information: concise status
>>> information.
>>>
>>> So, please try and follow "git status -sb".
>>
>> I think there are different levels of conciseness. And I see "git status
>> -sb" uses green for staged modified files, which would be confusing to me.
>
> ...only because you don't know the color coding scheme. It's green
> because those changes are saved somewhere (in the index) and would even
> survice a branch switch.

I suppose you could see that as green (I usually view a yellow traffic light as green as well ;-)

Isn't it best practice to commit the staged changes ASAP? (But let's not diverge in this thread to discuss best-practices, so consider that a rhetorical question for now ;-)

Show 5 quoted lines

> No, I said red for unstaged, green for staged for the characters, i.e. a
> * would always be red if present, a + always green if present.
>
> For the "branch name", it would be red for detached head and green for
> checked out branch.

using green for staged changes could be acceptable for me, but I'm slightly worried that a colored character would be too slight a hint.

OTOH, a detached head would show up with or without color...

Show 8 quoted lines

>
>> Perhaps, but that would be confusing to me ;-)
>
> If that is case, you can try and propose changing that scheme...
>
> But there's really a good reason for it. Cached (staged) changes are
> "safe" because they are saved in the index, and also they are "good to
> go into the next commit", i.e. the commit traffic lights are green!

I suppose I knew that in the back of my mind, but not as clearly as you spell it out here... Tnx!

/Simon