On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:22:50 -0500 Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Please don't trim cc:) > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Mark Burton <markb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't know if I have any scripts that rely on a single star in front of > > the local HEAD or not (I'm sure some people must have them), but I do > > think this new feature would be very confusing, especially when used > > with -a. > > > > At the very least, make the indicator something other than a star, an @ > > or #, perhaps. > > With color, it shouldn't be confusing at all as only one branch is in > green. How about the colour blind git users? > W/o color, it still seems clear to me as the remote branches > have their remote name prefixed to them. Even if you're on a detached > head: > > * (no branch) > master > next > sent/branch-show-remote-HEAD > wip/am-usability-improvements > wip/push-docs > origin/html > origin/maint > origin/man > * origin/master > origin/next > origin/pu > origin/todo > > A different marker doesn't really seem like an improvement to me: > > * (no branch) > master > next > sent/branch-show-remote-HEAD > wip/am-usability-improvements > wip/push-docs > origin/html > origin/maint > origin/man > @ origin/master > origin/next > origin/pu > origin/todo > > But I'm happy to have the community paint the shed I've constructed. > > j. You can paint a rickety old shed any colour you wish but it doesn't make it any stronger. Personally, I think the -> syntax is a much better idea as it is unlikely to be confused with the existing marker and it shows the relationship between the (remote) HEAD and remote current branch. Cheers, Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
