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 (could have new stuff, could be out of date).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 <ava...@gmail.com> 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
