Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > %C+ tells the next specifiers that color is preferred. %C- the > opposite. So far only %H, %h and %d support coloring. > > Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/pretty-formats.txt | 2 ++ > pretty.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > index e3d8a83..6e287d6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > +++ b/Documentation/pretty-formats.txt > @@ -142,6 +142,8 @@ The placeholders are: > - '%Cblue': switch color to blue > - '%Creset': reset color > - '%C(...)': color specification, as described in color.branch.* config option > +- '%C+': enable coloring on the following placeholders if supported > +- '%C-': disable coloring on the following placeholders OK, so typically you replace some format placeholder "%?" in your format string with "%C+%?%C-", because you cannot get away with replacing it with "%C+%? and other things in the format you do not know if they support coloring%C-". If that is the case, does it really make sense to have %C-? It smells as if it makes more sense to make _all_ %? placeholder reset the effect of %C+ after they are done (even the ones that they themselves do not color their own output elements), so that you can mechanically replace "%?" with "%C+%?". I dunno. -- 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