On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:22:49PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > The only comment I have is that I strongly suspect we will regret if > we used an overly bland "worktree" to a rather narrrow "is this ref > checked out in any worktree?" when we notice we want to learn other > things that are related to "worktree". Other than that, very nicely > done. Yeah, I should have mentioned that. %(worktree) was just a placeholder. Perhaps something like %(worktree-HEAD) would make more sense (the idea is that it is an extension of the existing %(HEAD) placeholder). Alternatively, %(HEAD) could return "*" or "+" depending on whether it's the current worktree head. That would mildly break an existing format like: %(if)%(HEAD)%(then) *%(color:green)%(end)%(refname) since it would start coloring worktree HEADs the same way. It would be rewritten as: %(if:equals=*)%(HEAD)%(then)...real HEAD... %(else)%(if:equals=+)%(HEAD)%(then)...worktree HEAD... %(else)...regular ref... %(end)%(end) I think that's perhaps nicer, but I'm not sure we want even such a minor regression. -Peff
