From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D959917F385 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:31:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714498282; cv=none; b=dijZTal+h9lDLWbu3PEOAFZSB+vsgdCOz7aRCUm5X3JRjz4aiQaUduy/L5C5wsdKghKjgQEGBBt3pgmXY6zeMPsVI8GI33x4dr4FlAP8JC+6A6PAEQTYxaoyCgjJasgsiWzQ9sFO4ZTdpUpOEy/KVsl0A5Z5AuD8Gl5rdJuaDLg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714498282; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yMLNmhlgYH/Ct6qNfSiy6xbLnpXlRt04H5hVd1Qs6wU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=HrATzjTUx0YSQDrTZXWxoX0FS54P4TlBb9s4vNe0OQ2uY6Ki2VrBuLrDmLcspkAk+8KhGOh1LT4EKPgRJsiHR2AP3Iv+aJgOXIV7QYXOmNdwqXOVbnxDqkTVG0GzhLOfXv3umN+p8K2NFKpQi+vWytfqWOkPGJT7/3J73UUZJQ4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=NstL2xor; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="NstL2xor" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBBF2C4E1; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:31:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=yMLNmhlgYH/Ct6qNfSiy6xbLnpXlRt04H5hVd1 Qs6wU=; b=NstL2xory630frQNDP4KfbEzti/103EgRRIbGyDr733ak9ddEBEQp0 9orsrMfnzCgQZ9FBpv2qZQ0M94r0V3g2Lr37DPuU3gLJWfhGjHbLUj/WsdUvQss0 a0a7lUH3V82Umojn3OD6Oh/qTJD1qi6NHQXLtVKxH24T/lge5eTgc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775322C4E0; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:31:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D06FD2C4DF; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:31:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Beat Bolli , git@vger.kernel.org, Beat Bolli Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] color: add support for 12-bit RGB colors In-Reply-To: <20240430105727.GI1279403@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 30 Apr 2024 06:57:27 -0400") References: <20240429164849.78509-1-dev+git@drbeat.li> <20240429164849.78509-4-dev+git@drbeat.li> <20240430105727.GI1279403@coredump.intra.peff.net> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:31:12 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 715398AC-0717-11EF-B448-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Jeff King writes: > On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 06:48:49PM +0200, Beat Bolli wrote: > >> -test_expect_success '24-bit colors' ' >> - color "#ff00ff black" "[38;2;255;0;255;40m" >> +test_expect_success 'RGB colors' ' >> + color "#ff00ff #0f0" "[38;2;255;0;255;48;2;0;255;0m" >> ' > > Heh, I would still think of it as a shorthand for 24-bit color, but I > guess you could argue it is now 12-bit color. :) > > (Only observing, I think the new name is fine). > >> test_expect_success '"default" foreground' ' >> @@ -146,7 +146,10 @@ test_expect_success 'non-hex character in RGB color' ' >> invalid_color "#12x456" && >> invalid_color "#123x56" && >> invalid_color "#1234x6" && >> - invalid_color "#12345x" >> + invalid_color "#12345x" && >> + invalid_color "#x23" && >> + invalid_color "#1x3" && >> + invalid_color "#12x" >> ' > > This made me wonder what we'd do with "#1", "#12", "#1234", etc. Looking > at the code change, I think we'd continue to reject them. I wonder if it > is worth covering here. Worth covering in this test, yes, but I am perfectly OK with leaving it outside the series as a #leftoverbit clean-up.