From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E591F453 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:51:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728698AbeI1BLJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:11:09 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:33930 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1728547AbeI1BLJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:11:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 8064 invoked by uid 109); 27 Sep 2018 18:51:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:51:30 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 3870 invoked by uid 111); 27 Sep 2018 18:51:06 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:51:06 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:51:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:51:28 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Nickolai Belakovski Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: colorize branches checked out in a linked working tree the same way as the current branch is colorized Message-ID: <20180927185128.GA4612@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20180927181708.GA2468@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:39:26AM -0700, Nickolai Belakovski wrote: > Thanks for the feedback Peff. I actually agree with all your points. > I'd considered an approach like what you proposed, but rejected it for > the first iteration in an effort to keep scope limited and see what > kind of feedback I'd get overall (like would people even want this?). > This is a much better approach, and also gives a path for listing the > worktree path in the verbose output. Great. If you go that route, feel free to use whatever bits of my patch are useful. I tested it only by running "for-each-ref" once, so it might need some more help. Definitely tests and documentation at the least. :) -Peff