From: Joakim Petersen Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 11:25:10 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] git-prompt: make colourization consistent Message-ID: In-Reply-To: On 07/06/2022 18:04, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Bagas Sanjaya writes: > >> On 6/5/22 02:26, Joakim Petersen wrote: >>> If the user is in a sparse checkout, the sparsity state indicator >>> follows a similar pattern to the short upstream state indicator. >>> However, clearing colour of the colourized indicators changes how the >>> sparsity state indicator is colourized , as it currently inherits (and >>> before the change referenced also inherited) the colour of the last >>> short state indicator before it. Reading the commit message of the >>> change that introduced the sparsity state indicator, afda36dbf3b >>> (git-prompt: include sparsity state as well, 2020-06-21), it appears >>> this colourization also was unintended, so clearing the colour for said >>> indicator further increases consistency. >>> >> >> colourization? I have never heared that. Did you mean "colorization" (en-US) >> or "colourisation" (en-UK)? I assumed the former. > > ;-) > > Either way, that word is a mouthful. Using verb "to color" and > "coloring" might be easier to read, perhaps? > I went with "colourization" as that is what the process is referred to in the code, however, I do agree it is a mouthful compared to "colour". Since I'm already submitting a v8 for other reasons, I'll make this change in the message as well. Since the comment about the choice of suffix spelling got picked up, I'll repeat what I told Bagas off list: "-ize" being American English is a misconception; most uses of "z" instead of "s" are AE, but the verb suffix is closer to its origin in Greek with "z", and is preferred by Oxford for this reason.