Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: colorize branches checked out in a linked working tree the same way as the current branch is colorized

From: Rafael Ascensão <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:40:49 +0100

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 01:16:19PM -0700, Nickolai Belakovski wrote:
>
> Not to hijack my own thread, but FWIW git branch -r shows remote
> branches in red, but old/new status of a remote branch is ambiguous
> (could have new stuff, could be out of date). Also, git branch -vv
> shows remote tracking branches in blue. One could argue it should be
> red since git branch -r is in red.
>

For me remote branches being red means: they're here but you cannot
write to them. They are like 'read-only/disabled' branches. Under this
interpretation red makes sense.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:02 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> E.g. I thought green here made sense because in "diff" we show the
> old/new as red/green, so the branch you're on is "new" in the same
> sense, i.e. it's what your current state is.
>

I still defend using green and dim green for this case. Because all
these worktrees are in a sense active. They're checked out in some
place. It's just the case that the particular one that we are in is
probably more relevant than the others.

--
Cheers
Rafael Ascensão