Re: What's cooking in git.git (Dec 2010, #01; Sat, 4)

[aleksi.aalto@iki.fi]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 10:30:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> * aa/status-hilite-branch (2010-11-18) 1 commit
>>>  - status: show branchname with a configurable color
>>>
>>> I am indifferent/uninterested; I don't see anything wrong with it, but I
>>> do not find coloring the field particularly useful myself.
>>
>> I am not particularly interested, either, but FWIW, the gitcommit syntax
>> highlighting that ships with vim does highlight this, so there are at
>> least other people who think this is a good idea.
>
> As you already know, when I say "'Meh' personally", I am not saying "I
> want to forbid others to want it".
>
> How does vim highlight the other parts of that particular line?  Does it
> keep them intact, or paint them in some other color?

The default colorscheme results in the branchname being colored with a 
different color than the rest of the header. Also the texts "Changes to be 
committed:" and "Untracked files" are colored with the same color. However 
with some other colorschemes, these texts have a different color from the 
branchname.

> I had this suspicion that the class of people who choose a non default
> status.header color and the class of people who choose plain there (or
> have been happy with the default) expect different things.  The former
> prefer louder output, different pieces of information painted in different
> colors to help them chromatically distinguish them.  The latter (including
> myself) favor subdued output, without too many colors distacting them
> while reading the output.
>
> This suspicion further led me to think that the former would want this new
> feature to paint the branch name in a color different from status.header
> color, while the latter would want it in plain.  So the default of "plain"
> would be a win for both audiences.

This reasoning sounds good to me.

:Aga