From: aleksi.aalto@iki.fi Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:54:27 GMT Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2010, #01; Sat, 4) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v8w04vvvr.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > >> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 10:30:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> * aa/status-hilite-branch (2010-11-18) 1 commit >>> - status: show branchname with a configurable color >>> >>> I am indifferent/uninterested; I don't see anything wrong with it, but I >>> do not find coloring the field particularly useful myself. >> >> I am not particularly interested, either, but FWIW, the gitcommit syntax >> highlighting that ships with vim does highlight this, so there are at >> least other people who think this is a good idea. > > As you already know, when I say "'Meh' personally", I am not saying "I > want to forbid others to want it". > > How does vim highlight the other parts of that particular line? Does it > keep them intact, or paint them in some other color? The default colorscheme results in the branchname being colored with a different color than the rest of the header. Also the texts "Changes to be committed:" and "Untracked files" are colored with the same color. However with some other colorschemes, these texts have a different color from the branchname. > I had this suspicion that the class of people who choose a non default > status.header color and the class of people who choose plain there (or > have been happy with the default) expect different things. The former > prefer louder output, different pieces of information painted in different > colors to help them chromatically distinguish them. The latter (including > myself) favor subdued output, without too many colors distacting them > while reading the output. > > This suspicion further led me to think that the former would want this new > feature to paint the branch name in a color different from status.header > color, while the latter would want it in plain. So the default of "plain" > would be a win for both audiences. This reasoning sounds good to me. :Aga