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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,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 5B8081F453 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 01:28:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727389AbeI1Hti (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:49:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:39652 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726100AbeI1Hti (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2018 03:49:38 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id s14-v6so4563621wrw.6 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:28:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=6oFi3thdG+xJFgTIYsmOUnuvv+hm5dwjFPcZJgkR3qo=; b=ugr0z1qZ6EBcBl361MRfxsfeb80TjOcEq5uzokCXV7+Ak0UntwzNZ7G/ZUzR3mqxis wc3+TMM/kmpnC4oSGX8DC9VgyZ5tLbkEdxUl6AWQhbuQqhFFCybWsjGi7+yMt0/UpV99 SN/yKg0unfBArFjxqx/nZMsdv/79IeahyFCtVkatzMXVBbjb5eXmsM4tcta7YutSkzhk tW6SY1oqKfeHBNqS+KQ7a9Vq3MCPQV6D3ylaa8Pd4LkDai00TjFWjdOxxQGUARzBp2nE JgCX4PsWs9PegfsglZ+cVOQgixE3V6lPrIkxrjgN2ZGIkjP4/DkYJkg1tgp9me8GOZXx X75Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=6oFi3thdG+xJFgTIYsmOUnuvv+hm5dwjFPcZJgkR3qo=; b=jUnvLJpBNakKok2/izbxrISsa7mp58j3nRap9MYDum17qBIQF7aN5T9qzB8vvA5m5r SaT0FMr8uyiBcP7iUfBkFn5DFRaeBGFXszk4qdzsuleu9Mx7hmYs4oEkspVjDzwkKn+K qUvJADXWwTe32oXsT5+J/+RJaF20znmIq9kRtyShwUCmhItK2/qS8S71o7k+xvuW4LXF FOAKhy8Xz+wYedIoOchSAp4OGuL1y4YcxC8hHtz4uGg3DF14wLSIW6obpVqHDR1FZy2g B4NO5RCNJ6E1Lrh5mjT+U5CZoEM9INWOe2Y/wMXY1l3PIvjXSfPzQO1FzvmJrl+yoqb5 2n4A== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojwG6ufujmAeXWTIdn0wcxrpVDUz3jkYA1S+4jci4EpWHZBSLUX WOZRx5zAZoaQiawSmG4cead2v02E X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62KmDqPIrUyeyyDiqe8+2TqjZZg+BPANEZyTt5CE3m268b1Yg2F8r5+8lq3YyoBW7l9vT4f4w== X-Received: by 2002:adf:bd10:: with SMTP id j16-v6mr10109350wrh.267.1538098107924; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (112.68.155.104.bc.googleusercontent.com. [104.155.68.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d4-v6sm210201wrv.15.2018.09.27.18.28.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:28:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Rafael =?utf-8?Q?Ascens=C3=A3o?= , Nickolai Belakovski , 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 References: <20180927181708.GA2468@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180927192804.GA27163@rigel> <20180927193559.GB6950@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180927194150.GA7452@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20180928010514.GB11281@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:28:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180928010514.GB11281@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:05:14 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Alternatively, %(HEAD) could return "*" or "+" depending on whether it's > the current worktree head. That would mildly break an existing format > like: > > %(if)%(HEAD)%(then) *%(color:green)%(end)%(refname) > > since it would start coloring worktree HEADs the same way. It would be > rewritten as: > > %(if:equals=*)%(HEAD)%(then)...real HEAD... > %(else)%(if:equals=+)%(HEAD)%(then)...worktree HEAD... > %(else)...regular ref... > %(end)%(end) > > I think that's perhaps nicer, but I'm not sure we want even such a minor > regression. I tend to think it is not worth having to worry about it by changing the meaning of %(HEAD) marking to save the effort to find a new token to fill that placeholder. Your %(worktreeHEAD) is good enough, I would think.