Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 is not a bikeshed, the color does matter. I challenge you to tell a bride that the she is bikeshedding while choosing the color of the dresses for her bridemaids. Sometimes color does matter. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 the votes by #number of commits in git.git? 2014-04-13 10:53 GMT+02:00 Javier Domingo Cansino javier...@gmail.com: 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 at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 officially said it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our official home page, either, for that matter). It is silly for us to have to say Ehh, that is a logo that was randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody else. Go talk to them., every time such a request comes. 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 logo in the first message. So,... seconds? Seconded. -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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. I do not think you can get rid of that split, though. Different people want different content from a site. Somebody who wants to download and run git does not care about our Summer of Code ideas page. Somebody who wants to get a logo does not care about seeing an in-progress logo contest, or discussion on which logos people are working on. Historically most of the dev information has been on the mailing list. But sometimes it is more helpful to have a web page showing the current state of some content (e.g., the list of SoC ideas) and just periodically update it, rather than having each reader assemble the current state from whatever has been posted to the list. We have used the kernel.org wiki for this in the past. What I was suggesting is that those things could fall under the name dev.git-scm.com (which could even just point to the k.org wiki, or some other wiki, or a site to which many devs had push access). The wiki has _also_ been used for user-facing content. E.g., the list of tools that build on git. That kind of content would make sense to me on git-scm.com, and perhaps it could be ported there to give it better exposure. The one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that received favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if there was a clear majority though) submitted when we briefly had a poll to come up with an updated logo. Do you have a link to the poll or its results? I could not find one in the list archive. Not that it necessarily matters to the current discussion, but I was interested for historical curiosity. I have also seen that logo receive unfavorable reactions from people, but my recollection is probably biased because I was one of those people. :) In any case, this motion is not about let's declare the logo we see on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one. It is not about that logo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one. People are welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a repository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think the project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though the bleeding-red fork logo may not be my favorite. Thanks, this is what I was trying to say in my earlier message. 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 was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our official home page, either, for that matter). It is silly for us to have to say Ehh, that is a logo that was randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody else. Go talk to them., every time such a request comes. 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 logo in the first message. So,... seconds? I do not know if I count, as I am listed as one of the proposers in your original message. But yes, I agree with this. -Peff -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 this rhetorical? If not... Yes, I really thought about the logo and like it. Many of your complaints are about how git concepts map onto the logo (for instance, the direction of the graph nodes). That is _one_ way of evaluating the logo. But there are other criteria, as well. For example, is the logo pleasing to the eye? Is it memorable and recognizable? Things like pleasing are subjective, but there are patterns across humanity. Graphic artists have studied this for some time and have guidelines for layouts, contrast, balance, proportionality, etc. For example, in the git-fc logo you mentioned, you rotated the logo from git-scm.com. I find it less visually pleasing than the original. It seems somehow more wobbly to me with the two branches sticking up. Now, that is my completely subjective opinion. I do not know very much about graphic design, and whether guidelines could help there, nor did I conduct any empirical research. So maybe it is just me, or maybe one design is universally more pleasing than the other. But I think that visual art considerations should be at least as important in a logo as whether the logo pedantically matches the tool's output. -Peff -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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, and related stuff? Is this rhetorical? If not... It was, because I was pretty sure the answer was mostly the later. Yes, I really thought about the logo and like it. Many of your complaints are about how git concepts map onto the logo (for instance, the direction of the graph nodes). That is _one_ way of evaluating the logo. There are many ways of evaluating the logo, and they are not exclusive. But there are other criteria, as well. For example, is the logo pleasing to the eye? Is it memorable and recognizable? Things like pleasing are subjective, but there are patterns across humanity. Graphic artists have studied this for some time and have guidelines for layouts, contrast, balance, proportionality, etc. Yes, that is _also_ important, but so is the fact that the logo should have correct Git concepts, because the main target audience for the logo is programmers. For example, in the git-fc logo you mentioned, you rotated the logo from git-scm.com. I find it less visually pleasing than the original. It seems somehow more wobbly to me with the two branches sticking up. Now, that is my completely subjective opinion. I do not know very much about graphic design, and whether guidelines could help there, nor did I conduct any empirical research. So maybe it is just me, or maybe one design is universally more pleasing than the other. I've been playing with different logos myself, trying to see if I can come up with something different (rather than modifying the one done by GitHub). I've yet to come with something that I think might be superior, but I think I might be able to do more improvements now. So I have to agree on this; the direction of the nodes in the current logo does seem to be more aesthetically pleasing than my own. However, you left the colour of the logo completely untouched by your analysis, and the colour is extremely important. But I think that visual art considerations should be at least as important in a logo as whether the logo pedantically matches the tool's output. *Both* are important, as are many other considerations. In short my concern is that *if* we are to pick an official logo, we shouldn't do it blindly, as it appears the logo done by GitHub wasn't reviewed at all by the community. Fortunately as Junio clarified; this is not a discussion to officialize the logo (albeit the title implying so). -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 with. BTW, I don't know if the old logo I am accustomed to has ever been used by the project officially, but I always thought it was that one. Javier Domingo Cansino [1] Git logo: http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 level/colours that can be used in the appropriate situations. There are a few options at http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos for matching the logo to the background. There is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved for various situations. I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I want to emphasize that there is no approval necessary for using alternate logos. Saying let's recognize this one as an official logo is not meant to shut down the use of others. It is only meant to say when people ask for an official logo (e.g., GSoC does so), this one is a good answer. That is not to say that proliferation of logos is a good idea either. The point of a logo is recognizability, and if there are dozens of git logos, chances are that most of them are not recognizable. 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 think the logo page above is a good start for variations of that particular logo. I'd prefer not to put other random logos there unless they also get wide enough use that they are recognized by the project. But I have no objection to a repository of random logos. 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 dev.git-scm.com for such things, or host repositories under http://github.com/git. But we would first need content to put there, and somebody would need to step forward to organize and maintain that content. -Peff -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 is using. While we are at it, can I please get that bike-shed in turquoise with a hint of ocean blue mixed in? Max signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 of different contrast level/colours that can be used in the appropriate situations. There are a few options at http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos for matching the logo to the background. That doesn't change the fact that bright red is a horrible color, and that bright red is used *by default*, as you can see here[1]. 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 in the initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one. I am willing to bet whomever designed this logo had never used Git in his life. My version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge from a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the latest commits, and has multiple branches. This is so obvious and simple, that I bet nobody even bother to analize the logo, they all though OK, I'm not a designer, it's a logo, anything's fine for me. 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 good. Even in the old logos[2] (whick even gitk is using), there was always a - represented in red. In my version green is used instead, which represent progress, a plus, the hunk added, success. There is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved for various situations. I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I want to emphasize that there is no approval necessary for using alternate logos. Saying let's recognize this one as an official logo is not meant to shut down the use of others. It is only meant to say when people ask for an official logo (e.g., GSoC does so), this one is a good answer. Yes, but that doesn't mean we should shut down our brains and just accept anything as the main official logo (of which most of the alternates would be based on). 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? [1] http://felipec.org/contrast.png [2] http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 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 is using. If you don't like my variation that doesn't mean we should accept the red one; there are many shades of green to begin with. Also, there's more than the color to think about; look at the order of the pictured commits; they don't make any sense. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 good. Actually, the best restructuring commits I tend to do to the LilyPond parser (one of my main work areas) as well as several other areas tend to remove more lines than they add. Not overly relevant to this discussion, of course... But as a programmer and architect, I tend to cherish the less is more maxim. -- David Kastrup -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 in the initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one. [..] My version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge from a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the latest commits, and has multiple branches. The red logo looks like a merge to me, and a merge with master means 'success' to me. Branching off means new attempts, but they may or may not end up in master. Vincent -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 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 blind... ;-) 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 it? No. You (well, everybody) should just take a deep breath, step back, and ask yourself Does this really matter that much to me and the rest of the world? Is it worth keeping up another long drawn discussion? Is there perhaps a chance for a compromise? Of course it is completely up to each individual to decide this! Power to you! In the meantime, I'll watch from the sidelines, eat my popcorn, enjoy the show, and keep on not using a git logo for anything, indefinitely :-). 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 is using. If you don't like my variation that doesn't mean we should accept the red one; Of course! That's why I marked it as only being an example. there are many shades of green to begin with. Indeed. And many shades of red, blue, etc., and let's not forget about stripes, dots, and other patterns. So many possibilities! Oh, and can I get mine with ponies? :-) Also, there's more than the color to think about; look at the order of the pictured commits; they don't make any sense. I disagree. And I think you again confuse your personal sociocultural conditioning with an universal truth. In closing, let's not forget that for some things, there just is no correct solution, and I think the choice of a logo is one of these cases. Cheers, Max signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 patches day and night, red is old, green is new. 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 it? No. You (well, everybody) should just take a deep breath, step back, and ask yourself Does this really matter that much to me and the rest of the world? Is it worth keeping up another long drawn discussion? Is there perhaps a chance for a compromise? So your position is it really doesn't matter. Noted. -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 history continues, but who is interested in the initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one. [..] My version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge from a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the latest commits, and has multiple branches. The red logo looks like a merge to me, and a merge with master means 'success' to me. A merge of what? Two commits without parents? Is that normal? -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 blind... ;-) 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 leafs vs blood). Philippe -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 leafs vs blood). By the way, the symbolism section of wikipedia articles about red green are worth reading. Philippe -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 looks good in limited situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up. That's funny; I think that commits *already* go up in the red logo, because what is represented is a merge, not a branch. Robust and easy merging, after all, was one of Git's early claims to fame. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 hip (if you believe the commercials). Apples are red. Red is healthy. Firefox is red on blue. I like Firefox. Green is the color of nature but also of poison. Which is to say, git's wellfare will surely not depend on the color of its logo. Otherwise the Coca-Cola company would have used a different color. -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 that this was the git logo. As a side note, I was surprised how hard/expensive it is to find a simple tshirt with either git logo on it. I received a free bzr shirt at PyCon a while back, but since I actually *use* git, I'd rather give it the advocacy love. -tkc -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 looks good in limited situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up. Here[2] you can see how horrible contrast this brigth red makes. [1] http://felipec.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/git-fc2.png [2] http://felipec.org/contrast.png I believe the color of the proposed logo is orange rather than bright red. And I think its a pretty good color for git, as it conveys friendliness and confidence [1][2]. 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. Just my 2 cents. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-honigman/psychology-color-design-infographic_b_2516608.html [2] http://www.usabilitypost.com/2008/09/29/a-guide-to-choosing-colors-for-your-brand/ -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 using the blink attribute and some autoplaying sound? I am sure we can provide an experience not easy to forget. -- David Kastrup -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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. Hey, and let's not forget that supposedly 8% or so of all males are red-green blind... ;-) 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 leafs vs blood). This is worthless, unless you (a) actually make the poll, instead of claiming to know its outcome, and (b) you establish that what people answer when asked about the colors red and green implies what they think about the git logo on git-scm.com rendered in either color... If you really want to conduct a poll, though, I think it would be more useful if you e.g. asked people to order several logo candidates / variants by preference, and/or asked them what feelings each logo evokes with them, etc. -- i.e. ask them about actual logos, as opposed to asking about something else (like colors) and then extrapolating without a scientific basis. Max signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 think that. Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see patches day and night, red is old, green is new. Hasty generalization. Come back when you have facts, as opposed to the illusion that you are the spokesperson of the (apparently silent) majority of Git users. Max signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 progress? No, I don't think that. Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see patches day and night, red is old, green is new. Hasty generalization. You don't know what a hasty generalization is. If you want me to explain it to you, send me a personal e-mail, you are polluting the discussion enough as it is. 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 (-) is represented in red [1] 2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1] 3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2] 4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2] 5) A test that fails is represented in red [3] 6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3] 7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has - in red, + in green [4] Given these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users red is old and bad, green is new and good. [1] http://ubuntuone.com/0lxzuxY2b59OEdDK5EOvfi [2] http://media.smashingmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/git1_4_git-status.gif [3] http://felipec.org/git-tests.png [4] https://plus.google.com/112500102483798323902/posts -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 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 patches day and night, red is old, green is new. Hasty generalization. You don't know what a hasty generalization is. That is another hasty generalization... If you want me to explain it to you, send me a personal e-mail, you are polluting the discussion enough as it is. ... and that is pure hubris and arrogance. :-) 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 (-) is represented in red [1] 2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1] 3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2] 4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2] 5) A test that fails is represented in red [3] 6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3] 7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has - in red, + in green [4] I do not dispute any of that. Given these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users red is old and bad, green is new and good. This is where you are making the hasty generalization. Your facts do not suffice to prove this conclusion. And even if the conclusion is true (which is possible despite your flawed argument, although I doubt it), then you are making another implicit assumption: Namely that people will automatically transfer the red/green principle from diffs and test results to logos. Look, it's exactly this kind of non-sense pseudo-rationalization that leads big companies to follow what market researchers tell them they absolutely must do to make their customers happy, and then fail big with it because emotional stuff like that doesn't work with pure logic. If you want to know what Git users think about the various logo variants, ask them *exactly that*. Indeed, that might be a helpful contribution. But do not ask them something else, and then pretend you can deduce from that what they will think about the logo. And in particular, please stop claiming that you don't even have to ask them that, because you already supposedly know -- you somehow being representative of the majority of Git users, while everybody who disagrees with you automatically is in the minority. You can do that if you are e.g. leader of North Korea, but nobody here is buying that. Max signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 dev.git-scm.com for such things, or host repositories under http://github.com/git. But we would first need content to put there, and somebody would need to step forward to organize and maintain that content. 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. 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 logo that Git people immediately recognised as the Git logo. That logo originally appeared on gitweb, I think, and is in my tree (on the other hand, the logo in question on the motion does even appear anywhere in my tree). We didn't feel a need to declare it was the official logo. That was from back when Git community did not have strong needs for branding. The one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that received favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if there was a clear majority though) submitted when we briefly had a poll to come up with an updated logo. https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitRelatedLogos has many other Git related logos, many of which I do not even recognise and are nowhere near official. In any case, this motion is not about let's declare the logo we see on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one. It is not about that logo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one. People are welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a repository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think the project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though the bleeding-red fork logo may not be my favorite. 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 was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our official home page, either, for that matter). It is silly for us to have to say Ehh, that is a logo that was randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody else. Go talk to them., every time such a request comes. 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 logo in the first message. So,... seconds? -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 it to help promote our project instead. That is what I meant by our official logo in the first message. Sounds good to me. Thanks, Jonathan -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 logo in the first message. So,... seconds? +1 -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 (-) is represented in red [1] 2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1] 3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2] 4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2] 5) A test that fails is represented in red [3] 6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3] 7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has - in red, + in green [4] I do not dispute any of that. Given these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users red is old and bad, green is new and good. This is where you are making the hasty generalization. And you prove again you don't know what that means. Your facts do not suffice to prove this conclusion. That would be an invalid argument, not a hasty generalization. And even if the conclusion is true (which is possible despite your flawed argument, although I doubt it), then you are making another implicit assumption: Namely that people will automatically transfer the red/green principle from diffs and test results to logos. It is not only diffs, in general in the tech industry red means failure, green means success. I can show you many many more examples if you need them. Then you somehow think that when people see the Git logo they are not going to asociate they countless hours they've been actually using Git, and seeing red as bad, as if somehow the logo has nothing to do with the program. If that was the case we might as well choose a cow for a logo, because it doesn't really matter. If you knew anything about logos you would know that the target audience does matter, and the organization's use of certain colors is important as well. Google for how to design a logo and you will find many references [1][2]. But didn't you say the colour didn't matter? If you really think that, then you should agree at the very least that green is as good as red. And if you don't care which colour is best, why are you arguing? [1] http://www.creativebloq.com/graphic-design/pro-guide-logo-design-21221 [2] http://www.wikihow.com/Design-a-Logo -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 logo that Git people immediately recognised as the
Git logo. That logo originally appeared on gitweb, I think, and is
in my tree (on the other hand, the logo in question on the motion
does even appear anywhere in my tree). We didn't feel a need to
declare it was the official logo. That was from back when Git
community did not have strong needs for branding.
The one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that
received favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if
there was a clear majority though) submitted when we briefly had a
poll to come up with an updated logo.
*snip*
In any case, this motion is not about let's declare the logo we see
on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one. It is not about that
logo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one. People
are welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a
repository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think
the project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though
the bleeding-red fork logo may not be my favorite.
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 was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our
official home page, either, for that matter).
It is silly for us to have to say Ehh, that is a logo that was
randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our
official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody
else. Go talk to them., every time such a request comes.
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 logo in the first message.
So,... seconds?
I guess it's not exactly clear to me what the difference is between
the official logo debate and what you're asking.
I think that the problem with this entire thread is that there is no
such logo that is understood to be Git (i.e., that you could ask
people out of context what the Git logo looks like and they'd be able
to remember without being tainted). If you want proof of that take
that logo from git-scm.com, remove the word git, and show it to a
random sampling of people in the tech. community and ask them if they
recognize it. I know that I wouldn't (like many others I had to
request http://git-scm.com/ to check what it even was), despite being
a long time Git user and relatively active community member (mostly in
IRC). I suspect that most Git users wouldn't be able to identify it.
I don't particularly like it the logo on git-scm.com[1], and I think
that several good points have been raised here about its weaknesses
and lack of any real strengths. I'm not sure that my say is worth
much, but I'd be in favor of using the one that spells out git (the
one in the top left of the wiki[2]) over the one with the nonsensical
commit nodes[1]. :) Or even take the idea from the wiki and tidy it up
a bit. I think it's a clever idea that works well with the name and we
shouldn't throw it away. Or even take the other and resolve the
problems raised above (the color is secondary, but the logical
structure of the repository is pretty universally backwards).
I wouldn't really be in favor of us encouraging the use of [1], but if
we do it's not the end of the world either. I don't think it's
particularly good so the question is do we and should we care if the
project becomes known by an ambiguous, flawed (apologies to the
designer) logo?
I'm not even sure that I'd agree that Git needs marketing at all.
That sounds like a gimmick to maximize market share instead of solve
a problem well and I think it belongs more in the rivals' camps. ;) I
think this project should continue to focus on being better instead of
being presented better.
[1] http://git-scm.com/images/l...@2x.png
[2] https://git.wiki.kernel.org/skins/common/images-git/wiki.png
Regards,
--
Brandon McCaig bamcc...@gmail.com bamcc...@castopulence.org
Castopulence Software https://www.castopulence.org/
Blog http://www.bamccaig.com/
perl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }.
q{Vg qbrfa'\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.};
tr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say'
--
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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our official home page, either, for that matter). It is silly for us to have to say Ehh, that is a logo that was randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody else. Go talk to them., every time such a request comes. 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. +1 Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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 what the licence of the logo is, the answer is: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported ( http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos ) I support both points above. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/ -- 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
RE: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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[1] which has a better color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up. Here[2] you can see how horrible contrast this brigth red makes. [1] http://felipec.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/git-fc2.png [2] http://felipec.org/contrast.png -- Felipe Contreras -- 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
Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project
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[1] which has a better 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 appropriate situations. 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. Regards, Andrew Ardill (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
