Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 05:53:23PM -0500, James Vega wrote: tag 379839 wontfix thanks It's OK for me to ignore the insufficient contrast introduced by more supported color modes but please note that this bug report was initially about a wrong color scheme. On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:35:47PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:03:24AM -0500, James Vega wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:59PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. This isn't a won't fix! The contrast is nevertheless bad. Bright blue on blue or pink on red are not optimal. The older settings where better. I agree that the contrast is bad, but there's only so much you can do with the limited color set available in a terminal. More syntax I'm tagging this as wontfix since there's not much to do about it even though I agree that it can be problematic. It applies not to the initial problem. If you have a patch and want to see this in Etch I could provide a German translation update if necessary to bypass the freeze :-) Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
severity 379839 normal thanks, On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. Since these stupid color schemes make vimdiff nearly unusable I increase the severity of this bug to normal. Please try to fix it for Etch. Maybe you can just reuse the old files? Manual setting :colorscheme has no positive effect. All styles (not only the default one) are unusable! Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:59PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. Since these stupid color schemes make vimdiff nearly unusable I increase the severity of this bug to normal. Please try to fix it for Etch. Maybe you can just reuse the old files? Manual setting :colorscheme has no positive effect. All styles (not only the default one) are unusable! This depends on the colorscheme. The default colorscheme does make Comment that are part of a DiffAdd hard to read. Although, in my case it was because the 'background' option was set to 'light' when I had a dark background on my terminal. Setting 'background' to 'dark' fixed the problem. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
tag 379839 wontfix thanks On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:35:47PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:03:24AM -0500, James Vega wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:59PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. This depends on the colorscheme. The default colorscheme does make Comment that are part of a DiffAdd hard to read. Although, in my case it was because the 'background' option was set to 'light' when I had a dark background on my terminal. Setting 'background' to 'dark' fixed the problem. Indeed, using :set background=dark (in a bright *and* dark terminal) improves the situation. Please note that I tried all colorschemes also in an inversed terminal (but without background=dark). The contrast is nevertheless bad. Bright blue on blue or pink on red are not optimal. The older settings where better. I agree that the contrast is bad, but there's only so much you can do with the limited color set available in a terminal. More syntax elements were introduced in vim7 so it's harder to avoid less-than-ideal highlighting scenarios. I'm tagging this as wontfix since there's not much to do about it even though I agree that it can be problematic. James -- GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:03:24AM -0500, James Vega wrote: On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 01:40:59PM +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 09:50:24PM +0200, Jens Seidel wrote: Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. This depends on the colorscheme. The default colorscheme does make Comment that are part of a DiffAdd hard to read. Although, in my case it was because the 'background' option was set to 'light' when I had a dark background on my terminal. Setting 'background' to 'dark' fixed the problem. Indeed, using :set background=dark (in a bright *and* dark terminal) improves the situation. Please note that I tried all colorschemes also in an inversed terminal (but without background=dark). The contrast is nevertheless bad. Bright blue on blue or pink on red are not optimal. The older settings where better. The contrast can be calculated as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT#color-contrast (the RGB color space in not optimal). Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#379839: vim: Bogus color schema
Package: vim Version: 1:7.0-035+1 Severity: minor Hi, I noticed that the default color schema of vimdiff is wrong, since added lines in one of the files are not visible because foreground and background color are identical. Try for example to open the attached files in vimdiff. I also have to confess that this color schema (and various other I tried) is worse since the last updates a few days ago. There are nearly no contrasts it vimdiff. Jens -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686 Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages vim depends on: ii libc62.3.6-15GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libgpmg1 1.19.6-22 General Purpose Mouse - shared lib ii libncurses5 5.5-2 Shared libraries for terminal hand ii vim-common 1:7.0-035+1 Vi IMproved - Common files ii vim-runtime 1:7.0-035+1 Vi IMproved - Runtime files vim recommends no packages. -- no debconf information ul lia href=http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/jwchat;jwchat/a mdash; Full featured, web-based Jabber chat client./li /ul ul lia href=http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/jwchat;jwchat/a # my fancy translation ndash; Funktionsreicher, Web-basierter Jabber-Chat-Client./li mdash; Full featured, web-based Jabber chat client./li /ul
