On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:28:18AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> > We could add some new tag to change the behavior of all following %C >> > tags. Something like %C(tty) maybe (probably a bad name), then >> > discourage the use if "%C(auto" for terminal detection? >> >> Yeah, adding a "%C(enable-auto-color)" or something would be backwards >> compatible and less painful than using "%C(auto)" everywhere. I do >> wonder if anybody actually _wants_ the "always show color, even if >> --no-color" behavior. I'm having trouble thinking of a good use for it. >> >> IOW, I'm wondering if anyone would disagree that the current behavior is >> simply buggy. Reading the thread at: >> >> http://public-inbox.org/git/7v4njkmq07.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> I don't really see any compelling reason against it (there was some >> question of which config to use, but we already answered that with >> "%C(auto)", and use the value from the pretty_ctx). > > So here's what a patch to do that would look like. I admit that "I can't > think of a good use" does not mean there _isn't_ one, but perhaps by > posting this, it might provoke other people to think on it, too. And if > nobody can come up with, maybe it's a good idea. I think you covered all bases with %C(always,..) and updating for-each-ref code. And changing behavior of visual features like this sounds more like "evolving" than "breaking backward compatibility" to me. So +1. -- Duy