From: Justin Donnelly Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 19:43:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] git-prompt: make colourization consistent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9fa34f22-3404-7bf8-6985-642c80634bf8@online.no> Hi all. I'm the author of 0ec7c23c (git-prompt: make upstream state indicator location consistent, 2022-02-27). Sorry I'm a little late jumping in. I was also going to propose something more comprehensive and future-proof than what's there (adding the applicable color (including clear) to all the indicators), but I like Junio's idea better. The only other thing I have to add is that it's probably a good idea to include a comment in the function `__git_ps1_colorize_gitstring` explaining the design so future developers/reviewers know. Thanks, Justin On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 2:52 PM Joakim Petersen wrote: > > On 03/06/2022 19:23, Joakim Petersen wrote: > > That does seem like a much better idea for maintainability, I can > > change the patch to do this instead. I have one question, though: the > > sequence $c$b (bare state and branch name) is a special case, where > > they're intended to have the same colour, should I wrap both in colour > > set, colour clear, or only clear after $b? The former requires rewriting > > the tests or changing $gitstring to not include $c when $c is empty, > > while the latter keeps the tests unchanged, but may pose a problem if > > "BARE:" should at any point not appear immediately before the branch > > name. > > Sorry, the former (colourizing and clearing $c and $b individually) > requires rewriting tests no matter what.