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 color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited
> situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc which has a
> color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up.
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 level/colours that can be used in the
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.
There is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved
for various situations.
I recommend creating a git repository called git-resources,
git-marketing, or git-assets, to contain the various approved logos.
If there is not another location, or a more appropriate one,
https://github.com/git would be a good place to put this.
(I'm always concerned about making useless contributions to
conversations like this, but I think having a specific location for
resources like the logo will be very valuable).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html