On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:28:04PM +0100, Rafael Ascensão wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:17:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > Do we want to limit this to git-branch, though? Ideally any output you > > get from git-branch could be replicated with for-each-ref (or with > > a custom "branch --format"). > > > > I.e., could we have a format in ref-filter that matches HEAD, but > > returns a distinct symbol for a worktree HEAD? That would allow a few > > things: > > I was going to suggest using dim green and green for elsewhere and here > respectively, in a similar way how range-diff uses it to show different > versions of the same diff. Yeah, I think that's reasonable, and would be enabled by the %(worktree) placeholder I showed. Just like we do something like: %(if)%(HEAD)%(then)* %(color:green)%(else) %(end) now, we could do: %(if)%(HEAD)%(then)* %(color:bold green) %(else)%(if)%(worktree)%(then)+ %(color:green) %(else) %(end)%(end) (respecting the user's color config, of course, rather than hard-coded colors). Trying that out, though, I'm not sure if we properly support nested if's. That might be a bug we have to fix first. > But if we're open to change how branches are displayed maybe a config > option like branch.format (probably not the best name choice) that can > be set to the 'for-each-ref --format' syntax would be way more flexible. We have that already, don't we? > I think the different symbol and dimmed color would be a nice addition, > but I am leaning towards giving the user the ultimate choice on how they > want to format their output. (Maybe with dimmed plus symbol as default). Definitely. -Peff
