It does look good! I was planning to address your issue in the next version that's just around the corner, but you beat me to it 😄

A few thoughts on UI design:

• It'd make sense to bold SidebarItem.DetachedHead as well.
• Bolding an upstream might be confusing if it's not up-to-date with the checked-out branch.
• Even if we check that the upstream is up-to-date, I'm on the fence about bolding remotes at all. In GraphView, bold already means "checked-out"; and your PR is reinforcing the "checked-out" meaning in the Local Branches section of the sidebar. However, since you can't check out a remote branch directly, bolding an upstream would break the "checked-out" pattern.

What do you think?

(PS: Please try the included test.py - Removing the italics from the upstream font will break a few unit tests.)

• It'd make sense to bold SidebarItem.DetachedHead as well.

Yes, great idea.

• Bolding an upstream might be confusing if it's not up-to-date with the checked-out branch.

• Even if we check that the upstream is up-to-date, I'm on the fence about bolding remotes at all. In GraphView, bold already means "checked-out"; and your PR is reinforcing the "checked-out" meaning in the Local Branches section of the sidebar. However, since you can't check out a remote branch directly, bolding an upstream would break the "checked-out" pattern.

Hmm, I get what you mean, but I don't feel the same way. Maybe how I think about it is: precisely because you can't check out a remote branch directly, there is no confusion, no chance of it breaking the pattern. Or: it's bold because it's the upstream of the checked-out branch, so it fits the pattern. And rather than up-to-dateness, I just think of it as communicating: here's where my pushes will go.

Removing the italics from the upstream font will break a few unit tests.

Oops! Fixing them now :)

After sleeping on it, I agree with you. Thank you for the PR!