On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:02:12AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Yeah, I think this is a good fix. I had a vague feeling that we may have
> > done this on purpose to let the decoration color "inherit" from the
> > existing colors for backwards compatibility, but I don't think that
> > could ever have worked (since color.decorate.* never defaulted to
> > "normal").
>
> Hmph, but that $gmane/191118 talks about giving bold to commit-color
> and then expecting for decors to inherit the boldness, a wish I can
> understand. But I do not necessarily agree with it---it relies on
> that after "<commit-color>(" and "<commit-color>, " there is no reset,
> which is not how everything else works.
I don't see anybody actually _wanting_ the inheritance. It is mentioned
merely as an observation. So yeah, we would break anybody who does:
[color "diff"]
commit = blue
[color "decorate"]
branch = normal
remoteBranch = normal
tag = normal
stash = normal
HEAD = normal
and expects the "blue" to persist automatically.
But given that this behaves in the opposite way of every other part of
git's color handling, I think we can call it a bug, and people doing
that are crazy (they should s/normal/blue/ in the latter config).
> So this change at least needs to come with an explanation to people
> who are used to and took advantage of this color attribute leakage,
> definitely in the log message and preferrably to the documentation
> that covers all the color.*.<slot> settings, I think.
I'd agree it is worth a mention in the log (and possibly release notes),
but I don't think it is worth polluting the documentation forever
(though explaining that we never inherit might be worth doing, and that
is perhaps what you meant).
-Peff
--
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