From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#35695: 27.0.50; Faces diff-added and diff-removed look the same in a 256 color terminal Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 08:58:45 +0300 Message-ID: <83v9ygb4dm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83woiwb58x.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="239060"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: 35695@debbugs.gnu.org To: andlind@gmail.com Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 12 08:00:10 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWr-00104T-Qe for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 08:00:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39193 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWq-0000en-SH for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 02:00:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52026) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWl-0000ei-Ri for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 02:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWl-0006eK-2C for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 02:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:56328) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWk-0006eD-VV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 02:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhWk-0004J0-OA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 02:00:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 06:00:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 35695 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 35695-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B35695.155764075216456 (code B ref 35695); Sun, 12 May 2019 06:00:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 35695) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2019 05:59:12 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41639 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhVw-0004HK-HB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 01:59:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37579) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhVu-0004H8-Ip for 35695@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 01:59:10 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:52585) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhVp-0006Lh-BK; Sun, 12 May 2019 01:59:05 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2243 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hPhVo-0008Rs-OI; Sun, 12 May 2019 01:59:05 -0400 In-reply-to: <83woiwb58x.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 12 May 2019 08:39:58 +0300) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 209.51.188.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:159117 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 08:39:58 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: 35695@debbugs.gnu.org > > I think we should go to the back values when min-colors is 256 or > less. I meant: I think we should go back to the old values when min-colors is 256 or less. Sorry.