https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44394
--- Comment #63 from Matthew Flaschen <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #62) > You've hitched this issue to Jon's patch as a way of framing the > current inconsistency as being part of a gradual roll-out, but it isn't: it's > just some incomplete work that we left laying around. I didn't even know Jon's patch was in Gerrit (or if I did, I forgot), when I wrote that comment. That's why I didn't mention it. I agree it's inconsistent/incomplete/whatever you want to call it. The question is where we go from here. > This makes the resistance to change I01eec7285 confounding to me: is it > motivated purely by a dislike of having been wrong? Since we're talking about fallacies, can you try to avoid ad hominem? You still haven't explained why this is such an *urgent* problem with the site that we can't change it as part of a switch to a global Vector font stack, even though that's in progress. If it becomes clear the global font stack push has stalled, I will be glad to reconsider in a while. Would this be easier to > accept if we changed the commit message headline to "Remove interface- > specific font declarations to clear path > for a site-wide font stack"? No, the point is that if we're doing a global font stack, and it seems we are, that should be one unit of work. > I don't understand how we can ask users to let go of old interface cruft that > they've gotten used to if we're not prepared to do it ourselves. You are essentially asking to flip the font twice for users, even if we do choose to use the same (or close enough) stack, and even if the global stack comes out quite soon. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
