Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2010, #01; Sat, 4)
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Dec 10, 2010, 19:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7vk4jhcshf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20101209172708.GA1817@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 30 quoted lines
> Subject: [PATCH] default color.status.branch to "same as header" > > This gives it the same behavior as we had prior to 1d28232 > (status: show branchname with a configurable color). > > To do this we need the concept of a "NIL" color, which is > provided by color.[ch]. The implementation is very simple; > in particular, there are no precautions taken against code > accidentally printing the NIL. This should be fine in > practice because: > > 1. You can't input a NIL color in the config, so it must > come from the in-code defaults. Which means it is up > the client code to handle the NILs it defines. > > 2. If we do ever print a NIL, it will be obvious what the > problem is, and the bug can be fixed. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net> > --- > I resisted the urge to make a generic "same as $X" token, which would > allow users to do something like: > > [color "status"] > branch = from:color.status.header > > if they really wanted. But that would be a lot more code, and I'm not > sure it would be all that useful (it would be if people did stuff like > theming git colors like they do window managers, but I don't think we > are at quite that level).
Also if you go that route you would need to worry about dependencies, which would not be worth it.
> This is simple, solves the current regression, and provides an easy > blueprint for handling the case in the future.
As I said, I don't care deeply, but you obviously cared enough to produce a patch that is pretty simple and straightforward. Let's take it.
Thanks.