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

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.

However, I'm not sure about the default. The original patch defaulted to
magenta. Your fixup defaults to "plain", but that is a regression
(albeit a minor one) for people who have status.header set. I think the
correct default is "the same as status.header", but that is sadly not
trivial to implement because of the way we parse and store colors.

I don't know if it is worth holding up the patch. It is only a
regression to the user's eyes, and it is reasonably easy for them to
tweak their config.

-Peff