Re: [PATCH] Colourise git-branch output

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 12, 2006, 05:07 UTC
Message-ID: <7vejr5zoqe.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612111936240.6452@woody.osdl.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:

Show 24 quoted lines

> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Sean wrote:
>> 
>> Technically it is workable.. but why even start down the road of having
>> anything but branch names after a "branch."?   There has to be a better
>> spot for this variable, and it makes it more future proof, as you
>> highlighted.
>
> I do agree with Sean, both for the stability reason, but perhaps even more 
> because I personally think it would just be better to have a separate 
> "[color]" subsection.
>
> In fact, I'd almost prefer to see
>
> 	[color]
> 		diff = auto
>
> over
>
> 	[diff]
> 		color = auto
>
> exactly because once we have different things that take colorization 
> arguments, it's just nicer to have them all together (and we already have 
> "status", and now we're getting "branch" too.

I tend to agree. We probably should start deprecating diff.color and diff.color.<stuff> and swap them around, like this:

	[color]
        	diff = auto
                branch = auto
                # it begs "* = auto" entry perhaps...
	[color.diff]
        	old = red
                new = green
	[color.branch]
        	remote = purple