Hi Jan, On 2026-07-08T13:58:04+0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Wednesday 2026-07-08 13:17, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > >> ESC ] 1 ; \f[I]txt\f[] ST Set icon name to \f[I]txt\f[]. > >> ESC ] 2 ; \f[I]txt\f[] ST Set window title to \f[I]txt\f[]. > >> -ESC ] 4 ; \f[I]num\f[] ; \f[I]txt\f[] ST Set ANSI color \f[I]num\f[] to \f[I]txt\f[]. > >> -ESC ] 10 ; \f[I]txt\f[] ST Set dynamic text color to \f[I]txt\f[]. > >> +ESC ] 4 ; \f[I]num\f[] ; \f[I]txt\f[] ST Set color \f[I]num\f[] (0-255) to \f[I]txt\f[]. > > > >This seems to reword the description of ESC]4;num;txt, which doesn't > >seem to match the commit message. Should this go into a separate > >commit? > > I had inspected the xterm source code to figure out what codes are available > and what they really do. This naturally led to rewording inaccurate > descriptions in console_codes. I do not think it is necessary to split this > into much more commits. I could might have written > > console_codes.4: document more xterm codes and fix some behavioral descriptions > > but that gets a little long for a summary line, wdyt? I prefer a couple of commits. One commit fixing existing descriptions and another one adding new ones. Two commits should be enough. That makes the diff nicer. Cheers, Alex > > --