Re: [PATCH] Colourise git-branch output

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Date: Dec 12, 2006, 03:39 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612111936240.6452@woody.osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <BAYC1-PASMTP092A9E80667F373BF69AA6AED70@CEZ.ICE>

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Sean wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 
> 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.