On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 05:31:22PM +0900, nbelakovski@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@xxxxxxxxx> > > The output of git branch is modified to mark branches checkout out in a s/checkout out/checked out/ ? > linked worktree with a "+" and color them in cyan (in contrast to the > current branch, which will still be denoted with a "*" and colored in green) > > This is meant to communicate to the user that the branches that are > marked or colored will behave differently from other branches if the user > attempts to check them out or delete them, since branches checked out in > another worktree cannot be checked out or deleted. I think this makes sense to have. You cannot "git checkout" such a marked branch (since it would conflict with the other worktree), and that alone seems to make it worth marking in the output. > diff --git a/Documentation/git-branch.txt b/Documentation/git-branch.txt > index 3bd83a7cbd..f2e5a07d64 100644 > --- a/Documentation/git-branch.txt > +++ b/Documentation/git-branch.txt > @@ -26,8 +26,10 @@ DESCRIPTION > ----------- > > If `--list` is given, or if there are no non-option arguments, existing > -branches are listed; the current branch will be highlighted with an > -asterisk. Option `-r` causes the remote-tracking branches to be listed, > +branches are listed; the current branch will be highlighted in green and > +marked with an asterisk. Any branches checked out in linked worktrees will > +be highlighted in cyan and marked with a plus sign. Option `-r` causes the > +remote-tracking branches to be listed, This makes sense to me. > - strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(HEAD)%%(then)* %s%%(else) %s%%(end)", > - branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT), > - branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL)); > + strbuf_addf(&local, "%%(if)%%(HEAD)%%(then)* %s%%(else)%%(if)%%(worktreepath)%%(then)+ %s%%(else) %s%%(end)%%(end)", > + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_CURRENT), > + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_WORKTREE), > + branch_get_color(BRANCH_COLOR_LOCAL)); Makes sense. The long line is ugly. Our format does not support breaking long lines, though we could break the C string, I think, like: strbuf_add(&local, "%%(if)%%(HEAD)" "%%(then)* %s" "%%(else)%(if)%%(worktreepath)" "%%(then)+ %s" "%%(else)" "%%(then) %s" "%%(end)%%(end)"); That's pretty ugly, too, but it at least shows the conditional structure. > diff --git a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh > index ee6787614c..94ab05ad59 100755 > --- a/t/t3203-branch-output.sh > +++ b/t/t3203-branch-output.sh > @@ -240,6 +240,27 @@ test_expect_success 'git branch --format option' ' > test_i18ncmp expect actual > ' > > +test_expect_success '"add" a worktree' ' > + mkdir worktree_dir && > + git worktree add -b master_worktree worktree_dir master > +' This mkdir gets deleted in the next patch. It should just not be added here. > +cat >expect <<'EOF' > +* <GREEN>(HEAD detached from fromtag)<RESET> > + ambiguous<RESET> > + branch-one<RESET> > + branch-two<RESET> > + master<RESET> > ++ <CYAN>master_worktree<RESET> > + ref-to-branch<RESET> -> branch-one > + ref-to-remote<RESET> -> origin/branch-one > +EOF > +test_expect_success TTY 'worktree colors correct' ' > + test_terminal git branch >actual.raw && > + test_decode_color <actual.raw >actual && > + test_cmp expect actual > +' We are not testing the auto-color behavior here, so I think you could just use "git branch --color >actual.raw" and drop the TTY prerequisite. That's shorter and simpler, and will let your test run on more platforms. -Peff
