On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html