Stefan Beller wrote:
So this is really bikeshedding at its finest.
You don't seem to understand what is bikeshedding. The reason a bikeshed is
used as reference is because the primary function of a bikeshed is to store
bikes, and therefore the color of the bikeshed doesn't really matter.
A logo
So this is really bikeshedding at its finest.
I'd personally do agree on the logo proposed in the first mail by Junio.
However who is the core community, who am I to judge?
So maybe the decision process on this issue may need a more centrally
steered opinion,
so why not call for votes and weight
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
The motion is about this:
Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting
our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on
git-scm.com today with our project, but we never
I think it is a suitable logo. It might not be the one I would think
of, but I see with good eyes using it as one of the project logos.
Javier Domingo Cansino
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The mention of dev.git-scm.com gives me a mixed feeling. The
chasm between the developer community and casual end-users who know
about Git primarily via their perusal of git-scm.com is one of the
root causes of this confusion.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this
question;
Have you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against
change, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com, and related
stuff?
Is
Jeff King wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
I would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this
question;
Have you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against
change, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com,
I have never thought on that logo as the Git logo (the red one), and
thought it was [1]. Mainly because the logo itself has git inside.
I have to agree with David Kastrup on that I see no connection to git
only by the image (red one). Maybe is because I am accustomed to the
older one[1] I started
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:24:24AM +1000, Andrew Ardill wrote:
It's normal for an organisation to have a collection of logos to
choose from, with one 'official' version. For example, a black and
white version is useful for print. Similarly, it's useful to have a
couple of different contrast
My two cents: I like git-scm.com quite a bit. As for the logo, I think it's
nice and simple, and based on experience I think that for every logo you'll
find people who object to it. E.g. the red color of the log on git-scm.com
looks great to me, while I dislike e.g. the color variation Felipe
Jeff King wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:24:24AM +1000, Andrew Ardill wrote:
It's normal for an organisation to have a collection of logos to
choose from, with one 'official' version. For example, a black and
white version is useful for print. Similarly, it's useful to have a
couple
Max Horn wrote:
As for the logo, I think it's nice and simple,
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
and based on experience I think that for every logo you'll find people
who object to it.
So we should just accept any logo without thinking about
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
Secondly, the logos that are not black, are bright red, which is
horrible; not only do they look bad in almost every situation due to the
contrast, but in a Git's mindeset red implies old, a minus, the hunk
removed, an error, which is not
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, even the black ones have the issue I already mentioned; they
picture the equivalent of two root commits (with no parents) that are
immediately merged, and the history continues, but who is interested
On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
As for the logo, I think it's nice and simple,
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
No, I don't think that.
Perhaps you think that, but if that is
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
No, I don't think that.
Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see
Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, even the black ones have the issue I already mentioned; they
picture the equivalent of two root commits (with no parents) that are
immediately merged, and the
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
No, I don't think that.
Perhaps you think that, but if that is the case, it is based on your own
sociocultural background. Hey, and let's not forget that supposedly 8% or so
of all males are red-green
FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most
positive between green and red, the vast majority of people would
say green. Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or
that in nature quiet peaceful usually involves green while
danger/action involves red (tree
On 04/09/2014 06:43 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- To officially adopt the logo that appears on the project
home page as our project logo.
I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright
red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only
Am 11.04.2014 17:39, schrieb Philippe Vaucher:
FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most
positive between green and red, the vast majority of people would
say green. Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or
Coca-Cola uses red. So red is refreshing and
On 2014-04-11 13:32, Javier Domingo Cansino wrote:
I have never thought on that logo as the Git logo (the red one), and
thought it was [1]. Mainly because the logo itself has git inside.
[1] Git logo:
http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg --
Like Javier, I too assumed
Am 09.04.2014 18:43, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- To officially adopt the logo that appears on the project
home page as our project logo.
I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright
red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only
Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com writes:
Additionally, orange/red alerts and attracts the eye while green is
calming, uninteresting. Imagine a page with five different SCM
logos. If you want git to stand out, choose orange/red. If you want
git to be overlooked choose green.
How about
On 11.04.2014, at 17:39, Philippe Vaucher philippe.vauc...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
No, I don't think that.
Perhaps you think that, but if that is the case, it is based on your own
sociocultural background.
On 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents progress?
No, I don't
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green
represents
On 11.04.2014, at 20:56, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
You don't
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
The git-scm.com page is mostly targeted at end users: what is it, how do
I get it, where is the documentation. Things like a logo repository, or
developer information is spread across various wikis and other sites.
If there's interest, we can make
Junio C Hamano wrote:
In any case, this motion is not about let's declare the logo we see
on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one.
Phew. :)
[...]
Please help us by letting us answer Yup, that is a logo (among
others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you
using
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Please help us by letting us answer Yup, that is a logo (among
others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you
using it to help promote our project instead.
That is what I meant by our official
Max Horn wrote:
On 11.04.2014, at 20:56, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
Come back when you have facts, as opposed to the illusion that you are the
spokesperson of the (apparently silent) majority of Git users.
Facts:
1) A hunk that removed (-)
Junio:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
The pages at https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page are
done primarily by developers, and between the two logos on that
page, the one that appears inside the page under Main Page header
has long been the
On 04/11/2014 09:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
[...]
The motion is about this:
Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting
our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on
git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said
it
Andrew Ardill andrew.ard...@gmail.com writes:
I think it is fair to say that the red version is the one people
recognise as 'git' and so should be kept as the official version.
Who is people? I never associated anything with it. I had to look at
the actual web page to see what people are
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes:
- To officially adopt git-scm.com http://git-scm.com (and
git-scm.org http://git-scm.org) as our project home
page; and
- To officially adopt the logo that appears on the project
home page as our project logo.
For those like me who wonder
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- To officially adopt the logo that appears on the project
home page as our project logo.
I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright
red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited
situations. I propose you use
On 10 April 2014 02:43, Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com wrote:
Junio C Hamano wrote:
- To officially adopt the logo that appears on the project
home page as our project logo.
I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright
red is a horrible
Recently, somebody approached Software Freedom Conservancy,
wishing to obtain our blessing for using the Git logo on some
trinket they are planning to make. We joined Conservancy
earlier, primarily so that we have a legal entity that can
receive and pool the GSoC mentor stipend, and because we
39 matches
Mail list logo
