Andrew Ardill <> 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 talking about.  It's far too
arbitrary and could be anything.  If somebody actually took the pain and
oriented the branching symbol on a suitable background shape in a manner
where it formed a stylized letter "G" or even something obscure like a
Game of Life Flier or anything, one would be closer to have something to
talk about.

But as it is, it is just an arbitrary dump of lines and circles with no
rhyme or reason without an offset border and consequently with an edge
in a saturated color bleeding unfavorably into basically every
background.  If that is supposed to allude to being on the bleeding
edge: too smart for its own good.

I mean, people discuss whether it would not be better upside down.
That's nothing you would even consider if that thing had enough sensibly
or recognizably arranged elements to function as an actual logo.

I mean, _Emacs_ has a nice logo.  And even back in the eighties, the
crude "kitchen sink" logo it employed then was at least a good joke.

I think that more effort should go into that or any other logo in order
to create something identifiable and cohesive.  With regard to logos, my
all-time favorite still is "Sun".  Too bad it's history.

David Kastrup
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to