Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jun 2017, #03; Mon, 5)

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> The color experts agreed that (3) might be the best solution
>> as this gives most flexibility:
>>
>>     "I would be happy as I can configure the bounds highlighting
>>     to not exist, it would degenerate to a pure Zebra, which is
>>     very simple to understand. Junio seemed to like (2) a lot, so
>>     he would configure both dim colors to be 'context', but configure
>>     the highlight colors to be attention drawing. So everybody would
>>     be happy. It is also not too many colors, we are good at for loops."
>
> Another thing I found a bit confusing in the description of choices
> in the documentation was that description for some began with "Based
> on X.", and as a plain reader, I couldn't tell if that is saying
> "the implementation happens to be similar or shares code with X"
> (which is not all that interesting to the end user) or "the meaning
> this mode tries to convey is the same as X but the presentation is a
> bit different" (in which case the end user is hinted that it is
> benefitial to understand what informacion the mode X shows and how).

> Conceptually, you paint the diff output using water
> soluble paint into a Zebra pattern, then apply thin strips of
> protective tape to places where two Zebra colors are adjacent to
> each other (i.e. do not cover the boundary between a block of a
> Zebra colored moved lines and a block of context lines), dunk the
> whole thing in water and then remove the strips of tape.  Regions
> covered by the strips of tape will retain the Zebra colors, while
> the remainder of the Zebra colored part are colored in a much subdued
> way.  Understanding how Zebra mode marks the moved lines would help
> understanding its output, but your implementation may not share much
> code with the actual implementation of Zebra-painting.
>
> Thanks.
>