Sean [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:10:08 +0000
Andy Parkins [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
+int git_branch_config(const char *var, const char *value)
+{
+ if (!strcmp(var, "branch.color")) {
+ branch_use_color = git_config_colorbool(var, value);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ return git_default_config(var, value);
+}
As Junio already highlighted, the "branch.*" namespace is for actual
branch names. This config option should go into "color.branch" or some
other spot.
I didn't. And "branch.color = auto" is actually fine.
The problematic case is "branch.color.remote = purple".
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.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:11:24 -0800
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
As Junio already highlighted, the "branch.*" namespace is for actual
branch names. This config option should go into "color.branch" or some
other spot.
I didn't. And "branch.color = auto" is actually fine.
The problematic case is "branch.color.remote = purple".
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.