Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] branch: Mark and colorize a branch differently if it is checked out in a linked worktree
- From
Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 21, 2018, 14:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAC05385gbR+_cuD+9NPgX+f9aOoRhxu4BHXU+hvtdO54excE4Q@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20181113144931.GC17454@sigill.intra.peff.net>
OK, I see 3 votes for cyan and 4-5 people participating in the thread, so I'll make it cyan in the next revision. On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:49 PM Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 28 quoted lines
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 06:07:18PM +0000, Rafael Ascensão wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 07:14:23AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> > > just adding a bunch of color variants. It would be nice if we could just
> > > do this with a run-time parse_color("bold red") or whatever, but we use
> > > these as static initializers.
> >
> > I suggested those colors, but now, I think this needs to be
> > configurable.
>
> I think they are configurable in that patch, since it provides
> "worktree" as a n entry in color_branch_slots. But yeah, every color we
> add needs to be configurable, and this is really just about defaults.
>
> > I suggested using green and dim green as the obvious theoretical choice
> > but after using it for a while I found out that both shades are way too
> > similar, making it really hard to tell by glancing at the output,
> > especially when they're not side by side.
> >
> > If we continue with two dual green approach, current branch needs to be
> > at least bold. But I'm not sure if it's enough.
> >
> > I've been trying some other colors, and cyan feels neutral-ish.
>
> Yeah, cyan seems pretty reasonable to me.
>
> -Peff