Not to hijack my own thread, but FWIW git branch -r shows remote branches in red, but old/new status of a remote branch is ambiguous (could have new stuff, could be out of date). Also, git branch -vv shows remote tracking branches in blue. One could argue it should be red since git branch -r is in red. But yea, probably best to take this topic to its own thread. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 1:02 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 27 2018, 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. > > It would be really useful to (just via E-Mail to start) itemize the > colors we use in various places and what they mean. > > E.g. I thought green here made sense because in "diff" we show the > old/new as red/green, so the branch you're on is "new" in the same > sense, i.e. it's what your current state is. > > But maybe there's cases where that doesn't "rhyme" as it were.
