[FR] : A brand-new decorator (branch) display

[heartacker]

Here is a concise overview of the key branch decorator cases now implemented:

1. The "Family" Case (Ownership)
   Local branches act as "heads," automatically grouping all tracked remotes AND same-named sibling remotes into a single pill.

• Format: [ 💻 H ⇌ ☁️ origin | ≠ gitlab ]
• Logic: H tracks origin/H, while gitlab/H is just a sibling at the same location.

2. Tracking Distinction
   We use specific symbols to clarify the relationship between local and remote:

• ⇌ (Official Tracking): Points to the actual upstream configured in Git.
• ≠ (Sibling/Inequality): Marks remotes that share the same branch name but are NOT the official upstream.

3. Smart Prefix Bolding
   Remote prefixes are automatically identified and bolded to improve visual hierarchy.

• Format: [ ☁️ origin/main ] or [ ☁️ upstream/master ]
• Result: You see the "Where" (Remote) instantly, separate from the "What" (Branch).

4. Common Divisor Merge
   Untracked remotes with matching suffixes are collapsed into a clean group to save space.

• Format: [ ☁️ origin | gitlab : feat/search-v3 ]
• Logic: Multiple remotes sharing one common branch name, separated by :.

5. The "Perfect Match" (P0)
   If the local name and remote name are identical, we hide the redundant suffix.

• Format: [ 💻 main ⇌ ☁️ origin ] (instead of origin/main)

[Mingun]

Not sure, that I understand all that decorations and what they mean. IMHO, the only useful idea is using bold for remote names

[love-linger]

Don't you think this makes a very simple feature harder to understand?

The purpose of CommitRefsPresenter is crystal clear: to let users instantly see which refs point to the target commit. If you want to check the detailed status of branches, you should look it up on the branch tree or in its tooltip.

If your purpose is trying to show branch relationships in commit graph, your screenshot fails to do it. For example, not every branch points to the same commit as its upstream, and such relationships cannot be identified from the screenshot. And I do not want to do it.

[heartacker]

My idea is

1. display tracking relationships—especially in scenarios with branches of different names or multiple remotes
2. compressing the information density of the horizontal display and avoiding the redundant display of identical names.

[love-linger]

display tracking relationships—especially in scenarios with branches of different names or multiple remotes

Your pr fails to do this if the heads between local branch and its upstream are different. And as I said, this information should be displayed in branch tree (or tree tooltip) instead. This is the commit list graph.

[heartacker]

This can be displayed normally/correctly.

It just wasn't shown. This is exactly what I want.

[heartacker]

localbranch --->   G/develop
develop      -->   G/develop
token      -- -> NAS/develop
H-------------->   G/H

[heartacker]

base from the latest commit 2aaf697. Comparison with the previous implementation of my. I think the styles are similar, but I think it's more intuitive

left: develop right: myshare

[love-linger]

The purpose of CommitRefsPresenter is crystal clear: to let users instantly see which refs point to the target commit.

Your implementation makes the original purpose impossible. User need to lern (where to learn?) and memorize what does the symbol mean. And the remote in your implementation sometimes at left and sometimes at right, and the most important part — the name of the branch — is only regarded as a secondary thing in your implementation.

Branch relationship has nothing to do with the target commit itself. It should not be displayed there.