From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] Colourise git-branch output Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:39:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <200612112210.08327.andyparkins@gmail.com> <7v7iwx2a0z.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.162 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1GtyV6-0002yd-Hz for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:40:16 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751065AbWLLDkJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:40:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751067AbWLLDkI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:40:08 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:38878 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751066AbWLLDkH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:40:07 -0500 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id kBC3e0ID025090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:40:00 -0800 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id kBC3dwW6019706; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:39:59 -0800 To: Sean Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Sean wrote: > > Technically it is workable.. but why even start down the road of having > anything but branch names after a "branch."? There has to be a better > spot for this variable, and it makes it more future proof, as you > highlighted. I do agree with Sean, both for the stability reason, but perhaps even more because I personally think it would just be better to have a separate "[color]" subsection. In fact, I'd almost prefer to see [color] diff = auto over [diff] color = auto exactly because once we have different things that take colorization arguments, it's just nicer to have them all together (and we already have "status", and now we're getting "branch" too.