{"thread":{"id":"36372","subject":"Our official home page and logo for the Git project","startedAt":"2014-04-08T18:44:12Z","lastAt":"2014-04-20T17:53:23Z","messageCount":40,"participants":["Junio C Hamano","Matthieu Moy","Felipe Contreras","Andrew Ardill","David Kastrup","Javier Domingo Cansino","Jeff King","Max Horn","Vincent van Ravesteijn","Philippe Vaucher","Michael Haggerty","Holger Hellmuth","Tim Chase","Karsten Blees","Jonathan Nieder","Ronnie Sahlberg","Brandon McCaig","Stefan Beller","Erik Faye-Lund"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"238552","messageId":"xmqq7g6z4q6b.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2014-04-08T18:44:12Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-08T18:44:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Recently, somebody approached Software Freedom Conservancy,\nwishing to obtain our blessing for using the Git logo on some\ntrinket they are planning to make. We joined Conservancy\nearlier, primarily so that we have a legal entity that can\nreceive and pool the GSoC mentor stipend, and because we are now\none of Conservancy's projects, it was understandable that they\nwere approached for this request.\n\nHowever, while we've been using the logo created by Jason Long\nas our de facto logo (and git-scm.com as the de facto Git home\npage), we've yet to formally adopt Jason's logo (or any logo) as\nan \"official\" Git logo [*1*].\n\nSo, to clarify things -- and to make it easier to respond to\nrequests re: our logo in the future, we (myself, Peff and Shawn,\nthe troika who represent the Git community to Conservancy)\npropose the following to the community members:\n\n - To officially adopt \"git-scm.com \" (and\n \"git-scm.org \") as our \"project home\n page\"; and\n\n - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n\nWe hope that neither is controversial, as these have long been\nused to represent our project without any formal declaration of\nthem being official, and this proposal is to ask the community\nmembers to acknowledge the status quo ex post facto [*2*].\n\nSeconds?\n\n[Footnotes]\n\n*1* We already got an OK from Jason for use of the logo as an\nofficial project logo.\n\n*2* This doesn't imply any change in how things are run\nday-to-day. The source changes are discussed on this list, and\nupdated codebase will be pushed to the usual repositories\nincluding git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/. Scott\nChacon will continue to maintain the git-scm.com site, as he\nalways has done, and if you have suggestions or fixes for the\nsite, you can send pull requests.\n"},{"id":"238581","messageId":"vpqwqeyeenz.fsf@anie.imag.fr","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqq7g6z4q6b.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Matthieu Moy","fromEmail":"matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr","sentAt":"2014-04-09T14:54:56Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-09T14:54:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/72c8a2705971a25dfaff23cece15130d405685845d911aedd5667ace277f3fc5?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Junio C Hamano writes:\n\n> - To officially adopt \"git-scm.com \" (and\n> \"git-scm.org \") as our \"project home\n> page\"; and\n>\n> - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n> home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n\nFor those like me who wonder what the licence of the logo is, the answer\nis: \"Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported\"\n( http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos )\n\nI support both points above.\n\n-- \nMatthieu Moy\nhttp://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/\n"},{"id":"238586","messageId":"534578b2e22e2_af197d3081@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqq7g6z4q6b.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"RE: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-09T16:43:30Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-09T16:43:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n> home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n\nI have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright\nred is a horrible color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited\nsituations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better\ncolor, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up.\n\nHere[2] you can see how horrible contrast this brigth red makes.\n\n[1] http://felipec.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/git-fc2.png\n[2] http://felipec.org/contrast.png\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238611","messageId":"CAH5451kNoXobbh3-WBkewvKvNeFkV0P14Z55=qDN+Ak2WGkHSA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"534578b2e22e2_af197d3081@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Andrew Ardill","fromEmail":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-10T00:24:24Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-10T00:24:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"andrew.ardill@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/da14cb7c091dd44dc6c63a4d3361b149acaf25226dc78eb4131a17b93d9b0993?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 10 April 2014 02:43, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> > - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n> > home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n>\n> I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright\n> red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited\n> situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better\n> color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up.\n\nIt's normal for an organisation to have a collection of logos to\nchoose from, with one 'official' version. For example, a black and\nwhite version is useful for print. Similarly, it's useful to have a\ncouple of different contrast level/colours that can be used in the\nappropriate situations.\n\nI think it is fair to say that the red version is the one people\nrecognise as 'git' and so should be kept as the official version.\nThere is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved\nfor various situations.\n\nI recommend creating a git repository called git-resources,\ngit-marketing, or git-assets, to contain the various approved logos.\nIf there is not another location, or a more appropriate one,\nhttps://github.com/git would be a good place to put this.\n\nRegards,\n\nAndrew Ardill\n\n(I'm always concerned about making useless contributions to\nconversations like this, but I think having a specific location for\nresources like the logo will be very valuable).\n"},{"id":"238617","messageId":"878urdej2n.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAH5451kNoXobbh3-WBkewvKvNeFkV0P14Z55=qDN+Ak2WGkHSA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-04-10T07:32:00Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-10T07:32:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Andrew Ardill writes:\n\n> I think it is fair to say that the red version is the one people\n> recognise as 'git' and so should be kept as the official version.\n\nWho is \"people\"? I never associated anything with it. I had to look at\nthe actual web page to see what people are talking about. It's far too\narbitrary and could be anything. If somebody actually took the pain and\noriented the branching symbol on a suitable background shape in a manner\nwhere it formed a stylized letter \"G\" or even something obscure like a\nGame of Life Flier or anything, one would be closer to have something to\ntalk about.\n\nBut as it is, it is just an arbitrary dump of lines and circles with no\nrhyme or reason without an offset border and consequently with an edge\nin a saturated color bleeding unfavorably into basically every\nbackground. If that is supposed to allude to being on the bleeding\nedge: too smart for its own good.\n\nI mean, people discuss whether it would not be better upside down.\nThat's nothing you would even consider if that thing had enough sensibly\nor recognizably arranged elements to function as an actual logo.\n\nI mean, _Emacs_ has a nice logo. And even back in the eighties, the\ncrude \"kitchen sink\" logo it employed then was at least a good joke.\n\nI think that more effort should go into that or any other logo in order\nto create something identifiable and cohesive. With regard to logos, my\nall-time favorite still is \"Sun\". Too bad it's history.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"238681","messageId":"CALZVapkWzkvmKE8HRGGiXE+kSxkspn=JvcVieYS0sUjxeMgZVQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"878urdej2n.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Javier Domingo Cansino","fromEmail":"javierdo1@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T11:32:57Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T11:32:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"javierdo1@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/0f43d4d2e5f4320e8b5e1a46914213c5459dd0de261ab1587f222827f863d727?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I have never thought on that logo as the Git logo (the red one), and\nthought it was [1]. Mainly because the logo itself has git inside.\n\nI have to agree with David Kastrup on that I see no connection to git\nonly by the image (red one). Maybe is because I am accustomed to the\nolder one[1] I started with.\n\nBTW, I don't know if the old logo I am accustomed to has ever been\nused by the project officially, but I always thought it was that one.\n\nJavier Domingo Cansino\n\n[1] Git logo: http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg\n"},{"id":"238682","messageId":"20140411114017.GC28858@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAH5451kNoXobbh3-WBkewvKvNeFkV0P14Z55=qDN+Ak2WGkHSA@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2014-04-11T11:40:18Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T11:40:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:24:24AM +1000, Andrew Ardill wrote:\n\n> It's normal for an organisation to have a collection of logos to\n> choose from, with one 'official' version. For example, a black and\n> white version is useful for print. Similarly, it's useful to have a\n> couple of different contrast level/colours that can be used in the\n> appropriate situations.\n\nThere are a few options at\n\n http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos\n\nfor matching the logo to the background.\n\n> There is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved\n> for various situations.\n\nI'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I want to emphasize that\nthere is no \"approval\" necessary for using alternate logos. Saying\n\"let's recognize this one as an official logo\" is not meant to shut down\nthe use of others. It is only meant to say \"when people ask for an\nofficial logo (e.g., GSoC does so), this one is a good answer\".\n\nThat is not to say that proliferation of logos is a good idea either.\nThe point of a logo is recognizability, and if there are dozens of git\nlogos, chances are that most of them are not recognizable.\n\n> I recommend creating a git repository called git-resources,\n> git-marketing, or git-assets, to contain the various approved logos.\n> If there is not another location, or a more appropriate one,\n> https://github.com/git would be a good place to put this.\n\nI think the logo page above is a good start for variations of that\nparticular logo. I'd prefer not to put other random logos there unless\nthey also get wide enough use that they are recognized by the project.\nBut I have no objection to a repository of random logos.\n\nThe git-scm.com page is mostly targeted at end users: what is it, how do\nI get it, where is the documentation. Things like a logo repository, or\ndeveloper information is spread across various wikis and other sites.\nIf there's interest, we can make \"dev.git-scm.com\" for such things, or\nhost repositories under http://github.com/git. But we would first need\ncontent to put there, and somebody would need to step forward to\norganize and maintain that content.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"238685","messageId":"9D09EA38-1956-467F-88CF-9EA6F12F1CA0@quendi.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411114017.GC28858@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Max Horn","fromEmail":"max@quendi.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T12:39:51Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T12:39:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"max@quendi.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/241512?v=4"},"body":"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.\n\nWhile we are at it, can I please get that bike-shed in turquoise with a hint of ocean blue mixed in?\n\nMax\n"},{"id":"238691","messageId":"20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411114017.GC28858@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T13:24:48Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T13:24:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King wrote:\n> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 10:24:24AM +1000, Andrew Ardill wrote:\n> \n> > It's normal for an organisation to have a collection of logos to\n> > choose from, with one 'official' version. For example, a black and\n> > white version is useful for print. Similarly, it's useful to have a\n> > couple of different contrast level/colours that can be used in the\n> > appropriate situations.\n> \n> There are a few options at\n> \n> http://git-scm.com/downloads/logos\n> \n> for matching the logo to the background.\n\nThat doesn't change the fact that bright red is a horrible color, and\nthat bright red is used *by default*, as you can see here[1].\n\nMoreover, even the black ones have the issue I already mentioned; they\npicture the equivalent of two root commits (with no parents) that are\nimmediately merged, and the history continues, but who is interested in\nthe initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one.\n\nI am willing to bet whomever designed this logo had never used Git in\nhis life.\n\nMy version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge\nfrom a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the\nlatest commits, and has multiple branches.\n\nThis is so obvious and simple, that I bet nobody even bother to analize\nthe logo, they all though \"OK, I'm not a designer, it's a logo,\nanything's fine for me\".\n\nSecondly, the logos that are not black, are bright red, which is\nhorrible; not only do they look bad in almost every situation due to the\ncontrast, but in a Git's mindeset red implies old, a minus, the hunk\nremoved, an error, which is not good. Even in the old logos[2] (whick\neven gitk is using), there was always a \"-\" represented in red.\n\nIn my version green is used instead, which represent progress, a plus,\nthe hunk added, success.\n\n> > There is nothing wrong with having alternates that have been approved\n> > for various situations.\n> \n> I'm not sure if this is how you meant it, but I want to emphasize that\n> there is no \"approval\" necessary for using alternate logos. Saying\n> \"let's recognize this one as an official logo\" is not meant to shut down\n> the use of others. It is only meant to say \"when people ask for an\n> official logo (e.g., GSoC does so), this one is a good answer\".\n\nYes, but that doesn't mean we should shut down our brains and just\naccept anything as the main official logo (of which most of the\nalternates would be based on).\n\nI would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this\nquestion;\n\nHave you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against\nchange, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com, and related\nstuff?\n\n[1] http://felipec.org/contrast.png\n[2] http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238692","messageId":"20140411132935.GA5871@nysa.casa.local","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"9D09EA38-1956-467F-88CF-9EA6F12F1CA0@quendi.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T13:29:35Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T13:29:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Max Horn wrote:\n> As for the logo, I think it's nice and simple,\n\nYou don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\nrepresents progress?\n\n> and based on experience I think that for every logo you'll find people\n> who object to it.\n\nSo we should just accept any logo without thinking about it?\n\n> E.g. the red color of the log on git-scm.com looks great to me, while\n> I dislike e.g. the color variation Felipe is using.\n\nIf you don't like my variation that doesn't mean we should accept the\nred one; there are many shades of green to begin with.\n\nAlso, there's more than the color to think about; look at the order of\nthe pictured commits; they don't make any sense.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238694","messageId":"878urcc753.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-04-11T13:44:56Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T13:44:56Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Felipe Contreras writes:\n\n> Secondly, the logos that are not black, are bright red, which is\n> horrible; not only do they look bad in almost every situation due to the\n> contrast, but in a Git's mindeset red implies old, a minus, the hunk\n> removed, an error, which is not good.\n\nActually, the best restructuring commits I tend to do to the LilyPond\nparser (one of my main work areas) as well as several other areas tend\nto remove more lines than they add.\n\nNot overly relevant to this discussion, of course... But as a\nprogrammer and architect, I tend to cherish the \"less is more\" maxim.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"238696","messageId":"CAAH6HY_csXPQkPCsmBVPUHYcj+fEN5JKv1RD_=3X==FwKidLwQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Vincent van Ravesteijn","fromEmail":"vfr@lyx.org","sentAt":"2014-04-11T14:09:49Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T14:09:49Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"vfr@lyx.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/687868?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Felipe Contreras\n wrote:\n>\n> Moreover, even the black ones have the issue I already mentioned; they\n> picture the equivalent of two root commits (with no parents) that are\n> immediately merged, and the history continues, but who is interested in\n> the initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one.\n\n[..]\n\n> My version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge\n> from a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the\n> latest commits, and has multiple branches.\n>\n\nThe red logo looks like a merge to me, and a merge with master means\n'success' to me.\n\nBranching off means new attempts, but they may or may not end up in master.\n\nVincent\n"},{"id":"238699","messageId":"D372C563-C59D-47A6-91A3-D2C6BB2164B1@quendi.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411132935.GA5871@nysa.casa.local","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Max Horn","fromEmail":"max@quendi.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T15:02:23Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T15:02:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"max@quendi.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/241512?v=4"},"body":"\nOn 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n\n> Max Horn wrote:\n>> As for the logo, I think it's nice and simple,\n> \n> You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n> represents progress?\n\nNo, I don't think that.\n\nPerhaps 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... ;-)\n\n> \n>> and based on experience I think that for every logo you'll find people\n>> who object to it.\n> \n> So we should just accept any logo without thinking about it?\n\nNo. 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?\"\n\nOf course it is completely up to each individual to decide this! Power to you!\n\nIn 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 :-).\n\n\n>> E.g. the red color of the log on git-scm.com looks great to me, while\n>> I dislike e.g. the color variation Felipe is using.\n> \n> If you don't like my variation that doesn't mean we should accept the\n> red one;\n\nOf course! That's why I marked it as only being an example.\n\n> there are many shades of green to begin with.\n\nIndeed. 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? :-)\n\n\n> \n> Also, there's more than the color to think about; look at the order of\n> the pictured commits; they don't make any sense.\n\nI disagree. And I think you again confuse your personal sociocultural conditioning with an universal truth. \n\nIn 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.\n\n\nCheers,\nMax\n"},{"id":"238702","messageId":"20140411152147.GA12161@nysa.casa.local","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"D372C563-C59D-47A6-91A3-D2C6BB2164B1@quendi.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T15:21:47Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T15:21:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Max Horn wrote:\n> On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Max Horn wrote:\n> > \n> > You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n> > represents progress?\n> \n> No, I don't think that.\n\nThen you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see\npatches day and night, red is old, green is new.\n\n> >> and based on experience I think that for every logo you'll find people\n> >> who object to it.\n> > \n> > So we should just accept any logo without thinking about it?\n> \n> No. You (well, everybody) should just take a deep breath, step back,\n> and ask yourself \"Does this really matter that much to me and the rest\n> of the world? Is it worth keeping up another long drawn discussion? Is\n> there perhaps a chance for a compromise?\"\n\nSo your position is \"it really doesn't matter\". Noted.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238703","messageId":"20140411152251.GB12161@nysa.casa.local","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAAH6HY_csXPQkPCsmBVPUHYcj+fEN5JKv1RD_=3X==FwKidLwQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T15:22:51Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T15:22:51Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:\n> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Felipe Contreras\n> wrote:\n> >\n> > Moreover, even the black ones have the issue I already mentioned; they\n> > picture the equivalent of two root commits (with no parents) that are\n> > immediately merged, and the history continues, but who is interested in\n> > the initial commits? And who has multiple root commits? No one.\n> \n> [..]\n> \n> > My version of the logo is the equivalent of to head commits that diverge\n> > from a common one, which is extremely common; everybody works on the\n> > latest commits, and has multiple branches.\n> >\n> \n> The red logo looks like a merge to me, and a merge with master means\n> 'success' to me.\n\nA merge of what? Two commits without parents? Is that normal?\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238704","messageId":"CAGK7Mr7Pap0q85NR7aoM_3W-V7z5WMdmnoU+PC52_WTABdC1cg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"D372C563-C59D-47A6-91A3-D2C6BB2164B1@quendi.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Philippe Vaucher","fromEmail":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T15:39:16Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T15:39:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"> > You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n> > represents progress?\n>\n> No, I don't think that.\n>\n> 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... ;-)\n\n\nFWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most\n\"positive\" between green and red, the vast majority of people would\nsay \"green\". Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or\nthat in nature quiet & peaceful usually involves green while\ndanger/action involves red (tree leafs vs blood).\n\nPhilippe\n"},{"id":"238705","messageId":"CAGK7Mr7F52_M=khqJHHrR211fRjP2AyqzSQ16k2=5++8nhoikA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAGK7Mr7Pap0q85NR7aoM_3W-V7z5WMdmnoU+PC52_WTABdC1cg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Philippe Vaucher","fromEmail":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T15:48:17Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T15:48:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"> FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most\n> \"positive\" between green and red, the vast majority of people would\n> say \"green\". Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or\n> that in nature quiet & peaceful usually involves green while\n> danger/action involves red (tree leafs vs blood).\n\nBy the way, the \"symbolism\" section of wikipedia articles about red &\ngreen are worth reading.\n\nPhilippe\n"},{"id":"238707","messageId":"53481742.4090304@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"534578b2e22e2_af197d3081@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2014-04-11T16:24:34Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T16:24:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 04/09/2014 06:43 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n>> home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n> \n> I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright\n> red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited\n> situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better\n> color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up.\n\nThat's funny; I think that commits *already* go up in the red logo,\nbecause what is represented is a merge, not a branch.\n\nRobust and easy merging, after all, was one of Git's early claims to fame.\n\nMichael\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"238709","messageId":"53481DBF.6090307@ira.uka.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAGK7Mr7Pap0q85NR7aoM_3W-V7z5WMdmnoU+PC52_WTABdC1cg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Holger Hellmuth","fromEmail":"hellmuth@ira.uka.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T16:52:15Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T16:52:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"hellmuth@ira.uka.de","avatar":null},"body":"Am 11.04.2014 17:39, schrieb Philippe Vaucher:\n> FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most\n> \"positive\" between green and red, the vast majority of people would\n> say \"green\". Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or\n\nCoca-Cola uses red. So red is refreshing and hip (if you believe the \ncommercials).\n\nApples are red. Red is healthy.\n\nFirefox is red on blue. I like Firefox.\n\nGreen is the color of nature but also of poison.\n\nWhich is to say, git's wellfare will surely not depend on the color of \nits logo. Otherwise the Coca-Cola company would have used a different color.\n"},{"id":"238710","messageId":"20140411115834.18855ff2@bigbox.christie.dr","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CALZVapkWzkvmKE8HRGGiXE+kSxkspn=JvcVieYS0sUjxeMgZVQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Tim Chase","fromEmail":"git@tim.thechases.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T16:58:34Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T16:58:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@tim.thechases.com","avatar":null},"body":"On 2014-04-11 13:32, Javier Domingo Cansino wrote:\n> I have never thought on that logo as the Git logo (the red one), and\n> thought it was [1]. Mainly because the logo itself has git inside.\n\n> [1] Git logo:\n> http://git-osx-installer.googlecode.com/files/GitLogo.jpg --\n\nLike Javier, I too assumed that this was the git logo.\n\nAs a side note, I was surprised how hard/expensive it is to find a\nsimple tshirt with either git logo on it. I received a free bzr\nshirt at PyCon a while back, but since I actually *use* git, I'd\nrather give it the advocacy love.\n\n-tkc\n"},{"id":"238711","messageId":"53482162.9030706@gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"534578b2e22e2_af197d3081@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Karsten Blees","fromEmail":"karsten.blees@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T17:07:46Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T17:07:46Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"karsten.blees@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1111200?v=4"},"body":"Am 09.04.2014 18:43, schrieb Felipe Contreras:\n> Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> - To officially adopt the logo that appears on the \"project\n>> home page\" as our \"project logo\".\n> \n> I have made my objections to that logo before, but here it goes again: bright\n> red is a horrible color for a logo, as it only looks good in limited\n> situations. I propose you use the logo I chose for git-fc[1] which has a better\n> color, and instead of showing commits going down, they go up.\n> \n> Here[2] you can see how horrible contrast this brigth red makes.\n> \n> [1] http://felipec.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/git-fc2.png\n> [2] http://felipec.org/contrast.png\n> \n\nI 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].\n\nAdditionally, 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.\n\nJust my 2 cents.\n\n[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-honigman/psychology-color-design-infographic_b_2516608.html\n[2] http://www.usabilitypost.com/2008/09/29/a-guide-to-choosing-colors-for-your-brand/\n"},{"id":"238712","messageId":"87eh13dbq0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"53482162.9030706@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2014-04-11T17:20:39Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T17:20:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Karsten Blees writes:\n\n> Additionally, orange/red alerts and attracts the eye while green is\n> calming, uninteresting. Imagine a page with five different SCM\n> logos. If you want git to stand out, choose orange/red. If you want\n> git to be overlooked choose green.\n\nHow about using the \"blink\" attribute and some autoplaying sound? I am\nsure we can provide an experience not easy to forget.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"238714","messageId":"20140411172154.GA24988@nysa.casa.local","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"53481DBF.6090307@ira.uka.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T17:21:54Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T17:21:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Holger Hellmuth wrote:\n> Am 11.04.2014 17:39, schrieb Philippe Vaucher:\n> >FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most\n> >\"positive\" between green and red, the vast majority of people would\n> >say \"green\". Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or\n> \n> Coca-Cola uses red. So red is refreshing and hip (if you believe the\n> commercials).\n\nCoca-Cola chose red long time ago, if branding and artist experts told\nthem another colour would be better it wouldn't matter; their color is\nred and they can't change it now.\n\nMoreover we are not in the business of refreshing beverages, we are in\nthe business of revision control, and in revision control red is old,\ngreen is new. Period.\n\n> Which is to say, git's wellfare will surely not depend on the color of\n> its logo. Otherwise the Coca-Cola company would have used a different\n> color.\n\nIt doesn't. But green is still better.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238727","messageId":"08F0A934-7A93-492A-B49B-FED2E9D5D5BB@quendi.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CAGK7Mr7Pap0q85NR7aoM_3W-V7z5WMdmnoU+PC52_WTABdC1cg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Max Horn","fromEmail":"max@quendi.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T18:35:44Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T18:35:44Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"max@quendi.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/241512?v=4"},"body":"\nOn 11.04.2014, at 17:39, Philippe Vaucher wrote:\n\n>>> You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n>>> represents progress?\n>> \n>> No, I don't think that.\n>> \n>> 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... ;-)\n> \n> \n> FWIW, I think if you made a poll and asked which color is the most\n> \"positive\" between green and red, the vast majority of people would\n> say \"green\". Examples could be traffic green lights vs red lights, or\n> that in nature quiet & peaceful usually involves green while\n> danger/action involves red (tree leafs vs blood).\n\nThis 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...\n\nIf 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.\n\n\nMax\n"},{"id":"238728","messageId":"40FDE1FF-780F-46E1-A5AA-57D53D6D1C87@quendi.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411152147.GA12161@nysa.casa.local","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Max Horn","fromEmail":"max@quendi.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T18:37:50Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T18:37:50Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"max@quendi.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/241512?v=4"},"body":"> \n\nOn 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n\n> Max Horn wrote:\n>> On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>>> Max Horn wrote:\n>>> \n>>> You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n>>> represents progress?\n>> \n>> No, I don't think that.\n> \n> Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see\n> patches day and night, red is old, green is new.\n\nHasty 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.\n\n\nMax\n"},{"id":"238730","messageId":"53483ac0be5d5_937adb308e2@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"40FDE1FF-780F-46E1-A5AA-57D53D6D1C87@quendi.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T18:56:00Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T18:56:00Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Max Horn wrote:\n> On 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Max Horn wrote:\n> >> On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> >>> Max Horn wrote:\n> >>> \n> >>> You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n> >>> represents progress?\n> >> \n> >> No, I don't think that.\n> > \n> > Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see\n> > patches day and night, red is old, green is new.\n> \n> Hasty generalization.\n\nYou don't know what a hasty generalization is. If you want me to explain it to\nyou, send me a personal e-mail, you are polluting the discussion enough as it\nis.\n\n> Come back when you have facts, as opposed to the illusion that you are the\n> spokesperson of the (apparently silent) majority of Git users.\n\nFacts:\n\n1) A hunk that removed (-) is represented in red [1]\n2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1]\n3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2]\n4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2]\n5) A test that fails is represented in red [3]\n6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3]\n7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has \"-\" in red, \"+\" in green [4]\n\nGiven these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users\nred is old and bad, green is new and good.\n\n[1] http://ubuntuone.com/0lxzuxY2b59OEdDK5EOvfi\n[2] http://media.smashingmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/git1_4_git-status.gif\n[3] http://felipec.org/git-tests.png\n[4] https://plus.google.com/112500102483798323902/posts\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238731","messageId":"8BCDA559-89F0-4FD1-AA76-94CC67CB32C4@quendi.de","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"53483ac0be5d5_937adb308e2@nysa.notmuch","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Max Horn","fromEmail":"max@quendi.de","sentAt":"2014-04-11T19:24:09Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T19:24:09Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"max@quendi.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/241512?v=4"},"body":"\nOn 11.04.2014, at 20:56, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n\n> Max Horn wrote:\n>> On 11.04.2014, at 17:21, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>>> Max Horn wrote:\n>>>> On 11.04.2014, at 15:29, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>>>>> Max Horn wrote:\n>>>>> \n>>>>> You don't think red represent an oldness in Git? Whereas green\n>>>>> represents progress?\n>>>> \n>>>> No, I don't think that.\n>>> \n>>> Then you belong to the minority of Git users. Those of us that see\n>>> patches day and night, red is old, green is new.\n>> \n>> Hasty generalization.\n> \n> You don't know what a hasty generalization is.\n\nThat is another hasty generalization...\n\n> If you want me to explain it to\n> you, send me a personal e-mail, you are polluting the discussion enough as it\n> is.\n\n... and that is pure hubris and arrogance. :-)\n\n\n>> Come back when you have facts, as opposed to the illusion that you are the\n>> spokesperson of the (apparently silent) majority of Git users.\n> \n> Facts:\n> \n> 1) A hunk that removed (-) is represented in red [1]\n> 2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1]\n> 3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2]\n> 4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2]\n> 5) A test that fails is represented in red [3]\n> 6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3]\n> 7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has \"-\" in red, \"+\" in green [4]\n\nI do not dispute any of that.\n\n> \n> Given these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users\n> red is old and bad, green is new and good.\n\nThis is where you are making the hasty generalization. Your facts do not suffice to prove this conclusion. \n\nAnd 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. \n\n\nLook, 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.\n\nIf you want to know what Git users think about the various logo variants, ask them *exactly that*. Indeed, that might be a helpful contribution.\n\nBut 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.\n\n\n\nMax\n"},{"id":"238735","messageId":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411114017.GC28858@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T19:25:17Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T19:25:17Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King writes:\n\n> The git-scm.com page is mostly targeted at end users: what is it, how do\n> I get it, where is the documentation. Things like a logo repository, or\n> developer information is spread across various wikis and other sites.\n> If there's interest, we can make \"dev.git-scm.com\" for such things, or\n> host repositories under http://github.com/git. But we would first need\n> content to put there, and somebody would need to step forward to\n> organize and maintain that content.\n\nThe mention of \"dev.git-scm.com\" gives me a mixed feeling. The\nchasm between the developer community and casual end-users who know\nabout Git primarily via their perusal of git-scm.com is one of the\nroot causes of this confusion. \n\nThe pages at https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page are\ndone primarily by developers, and between the two logos on that\npage, the one that appears inside the page under \"Main Page\" header\nhas long been the logo that Git people immediately recognised as the\nGit logo. That logo originally appeared on gitweb, I think, and is\nin my tree (on the other hand, the logo in question on the motion\ndoes even appear anywhere in my tree). We didn't feel a need to\ndeclare it was the official logo. That was from back when Git\ncommunity did not have strong needs for \"branding\".\n\nThe one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that\nreceived favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if\nthere was a clear \"majority\" though) submitted when we briefly had a\npoll to come up with an updated logo.\n\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitRelatedLogos has many other\n\"Git related\" logos, many of which I do not even recognise and are\nnowhere near \"official\".\n\nIn any case, this motion is not about \"let's declare the logo we see\non git-scm.com today as _the_ official one\". It is not about \"that\nlogo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one\". People\nare welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a\nrepository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think\nthe project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though\nthe \"bleeding-red fork\" logo may not be my favorite.\n\nThe motion is about this:\n\n Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting\n our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on\n git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said\n it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our\n official home page, either, for that matter).\n\n It is silly for us to have to say \"Ehh, that is a logo that was\n randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our\n official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody\n else. Go talk to them.\", every time such a request comes.\n\n Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n\nThat is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n\nSo,... seconds?\n"},{"id":"238737","messageId":"20140411193845.GN3912@google.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T19:38:45Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T19:38:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> In any case, this motion is not about \"let's declare the logo we see\n> on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one\".\n\nPhew. :)\n\n[...]\n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n>\n> That is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n\nSounds good to me.\n\nThanks,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"238738","messageId":"CAL=YDW=LkvPq8-9Jv76MkN=7CzTmdXRF2-W66w+y-gprD7rpXQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Ronnie Sahlberg","fromEmail":"sahlberg@google.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T19:45:15Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T19:45:15Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"sahlberg@google.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7320636?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n>\n> That is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n>\n> So,... seconds?\n\n+1\n"},{"id":"238743","messageId":"53484ffd4d687_8291657308d3@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"8BCDA559-89F0-4FD1-AA76-94CC67CB32C4@quendi.de","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T20:26:37Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T20:26:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Max Horn wrote:\n> On 11.04.2014, at 20:56, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> > Max Horn wrote:\n> >> Come back when you have facts, as opposed to the illusion that you are the\n> >> spokesperson of the (apparently silent) majority of Git users.\n> > \n> > Facts:\n> > \n> > 1) A hunk that removed (-) is represented in red [1]\n> > 2) A hunk that added (+) is represented in green [1]\n> > 3) A file that is removed is represented in red [2]\n> > 4) A file that is added or modified is represented in green [2]\n> > 5) A test that fails is represented in red [3]\n> > 6) A test that succeeds is represented in green [3]\n> > 7) The current Git logo (accordo to some people) has \"-\" in red, \"+\" in green [4]\n> \n> I do not dispute any of that.\n> \n> > Given these facts, it's reasonable to assume that to the majority of Git users\n> > red is old and bad, green is new and good.\n> \n> This is where you are making the hasty generalization.\n\nAnd you prove again you don't know what that means.\n\n> Your facts do not suffice to prove this conclusion. \n\nThat would be an invalid argument, not a hasty generalization.\n\n> And even if the conclusion is true (which is possible despite your flawed\n> argument, although I doubt it), then you are making another implicit\n> assumption: Namely that people will automatically transfer the red/green\n> principle from diffs and test results to logos. \n\nIt is not only diffs, in general in the tech industry red means failure, green\nmeans success. I can show you many many more examples if you need them.\n\nThen you somehow think that when people see the Git logo they are not going to\nasociate they countless hours they've been actually using Git, and seeing red\nas bad, as if somehow the logo has nothing to do with the program. If that was\nthe case we might as well choose a cow for a logo, because it doesn't really\nmatter.\n\nIf you knew anything about logos you would know that the target audience does\nmatter, and the organization's use of certain colors is important as well.\nGoogle for \"how to design a logo\" and you will find many references [1][2].\n\nBut didn't you say the colour didn't matter? If you really think that, then you\nshould agree at the very least that green is as good as red. And if you don't\ncare which colour is best, why are you arguing?\n\n[1] http://www.creativebloq.com/graphic-design/pro-guide-logo-design-21221\n[2] http://www.wikihow.com/Design-a-Logo\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238751","messageId":"CANUGeEbZ=uO1-cQ+iFkg7TTVdR8h9_sZBzTXQ3ZpsqGprdpVrA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Brandon McCaig","fromEmail":"bamccaig@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-11T21:25:08Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-11T21:25:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"bamccaig@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/05b01f2b62a5ddbaa1946579266a8d9e970fed0c0b3c20e8d42aca973c31531c?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Junio:\n\nOn Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> The pages at https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page are\n> done primarily by developers, and between the two logos on that\n> page, the one that appears inside the page under \"Main Page\" header\n> has long been the logo that Git people immediately recognised as the\n> Git logo. That logo originally appeared on gitweb, I think, and is\n> in my tree (on the other hand, the logo in question on the motion\n> does even appear anywhere in my tree). We didn't feel a need to\n> declare it was the official logo. That was from back when Git\n> community did not have strong needs for \"branding\".\n>\n> The one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that\n> received favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if\n> there was a clear \"majority\" though) submitted when we briefly had a\n> poll to come up with an updated logo.\n\n*snip*\n\n> In any case, this motion is not about \"let's declare the logo we see\n> on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one\". It is not about \"that\n> logo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one\". People\n> are welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a\n> repository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think\n> the project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though\n> the \"bleeding-red fork\" logo may not be my favorite.\n>\n> The motion is about this:\n>\n> Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting\n> our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on\n> git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said\n> it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our\n> official home page, either, for that matter).\n>\n> It is silly for us to have to say \"Ehh, that is a logo that was\n> randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our\n> official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody\n> else. Go talk to them.\", every time such a request comes.\n>\n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n>\n> That is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n>\n> So,... seconds?\n\nI guess it's not exactly clear to me what the difference is between\nthe \"official logo\" debate and what you're asking.\n\nI think that the problem with this entire thread is that there is no\nsuch logo that is understood to be Git (i.e., that you could ask\npeople out of context what the Git logo looks like and they'd be able\nto remember without being tainted). If you want proof of that take\nthat logo from git-scm.com, remove the word \"git\", and show it to a\nrandom sampling of people in the tech. community and ask them if they\nrecognize it. I know that I wouldn't (like many others I had to\nrequest http://git-scm.com/ to check what it even was), despite being\na long time Git user and relatively active community member (mostly in\nIRC). I suspect that most Git users wouldn't be able to identify it.\n\nI don't particularly like it the logo on git-scm.com[1], and I think\nthat several good points have been raised here about its weaknesses\nand lack of any real strengths. I'm not sure that my say is worth\nmuch, but I'd be in favor of using the one that spells out git (the\none in the top left of the wiki[2]) over the one with the nonsensical\ncommit nodes[1]. :) Or even take the idea from the wiki and tidy it up\na bit. I think it's a clever idea that works well with the name and we\nshouldn't throw it away. Or even take the other and resolve the\nproblems raised above (the color is secondary, but the logical\nstructure of the repository is pretty universally backwards).\n\nI wouldn't really be in favor of us encouraging the use of [1], but if\nwe do it's not the end of the world either. I don't think it's\nparticularly good so the question is do we and should we care if the\nproject becomes known by an ambiguous, flawed (apologies to the\ndesigner) logo?\n\nI'm not even sure that I'd agree that Git needs \"marketing\" at all.\nThat sounds like a gimmick to maximize \"market share\" instead of solve\na problem well and I think it belongs more in the rivals' camps. ;) I\nthink this project should continue to focus on being better instead of\nbeing presented better.\n\n[1] http://git-scm.com/images/logo@2x.png\n[2] https://git.wiki.kernel.org/skins/common/images-git/wiki.png\n\nRegards,\n\n\n-- \nBrandon McCaig \nCastopulence Software \nBlog \nperl -E '$_=q{V zrna gur orfg jvgu jung V fnl. }.\nq{Vg qbrfa'\\''g nyjnlf fbhaq gung jnl.};\ntr/A-Ma-mN-Zn-z/N-Zn-zA-Ma-m/;say'\n"},{"id":"238763","messageId":"5348C0F9.2000208@alum.mit.edu","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Michael Haggerty","fromEmail":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","sentAt":"2014-04-12T04:28:41Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-12T04:28:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mhagger@alum.mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/119718?v=4"},"body":"On 04/11/2014 09:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> [...]\n> The motion is about this:\n> \n> Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting\n> our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on\n> git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said\n> it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our\n> official home page, either, for that matter).\n> \n> It is silly for us to have to say \"Ehh, that is a logo that was\n> randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our\n> official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody\n> else. Go talk to them.\", every time such a request comes.\n> \n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n\n+1\n\nMichael\n\n-- \nMichael Haggerty\nmhagger@alum.mit.edu\nhttp://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/\n"},{"id":"238770","messageId":"20140412120548.GC14820@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2014-04-12T12:05:48Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-12T12:05:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25:17PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> The mention of \"dev.git-scm.com\" gives me a mixed feeling. The\n> chasm between the developer community and casual end-users who know\n> about Git primarily via their perusal of git-scm.com is one of the\n> root causes of this confusion.\n\nI do not think you can get rid of that split, though. Different people\nwant different content from a site. Somebody who wants to download and\nrun git does not care about our Summer of Code ideas page. Somebody who\nwants to get a logo does not care about seeing an in-progress logo\ncontest, or discussion on which logos people are working on.\n\nHistorically most of the \"dev\" information has been on the mailing list.\nBut sometimes it is more helpful to have a web page showing the \"current\nstate\" of some content (e.g., the list of SoC ideas) and just\nperiodically update it, rather than having each reader assemble the\ncurrent state from whatever has been posted to the list. We have used\nthe kernel.org wiki for this in the past. What I was suggesting is that\nthose things could fall under the name \"dev.git-scm.com\" (which could\neven just point to the k.org wiki, or some other wiki, or a site to\nwhich many devs had push access).\n\nThe wiki has _also_ been used for user-facing content. E.g., the list of\ntools that build on git. That kind of content would make sense to me on\ngit-scm.com, and perhaps it could be ported there to give it better\nexposure.\n\n> The one on the left-top corner was one of the alternatives that\n> received favorable reactions from multiple people (I am not sure if\n> there was a clear \"majority\" though) submitted when we briefly had a\n> poll to come up with an updated logo.\n\nDo you have a link to the poll or its results? I could not find one in\nthe list archive. Not that it necessarily matters to the current\ndiscussion, but I was interested for historical curiosity.\n\nI have also seen that logo receive unfavorable reactions from people,\nbut my recollection is probably biased because I was one of those\npeople. :)\n\n> In any case, this motion is not about \"let's declare the logo we see\n> on git-scm.com today as _the_ official one\". It is not about \"that\n> logo on git-scm.com sucks; let's come up with a better one\". People\n> are welcome to do that discussion elsewhere, and I do not mind a\n> repository of contestants created somewhere, but personally I think\n> the project is too mature for that and it is too late, even though\n> the \"bleeding-red fork\" logo may not be my favorite.\n\nThanks, this is what I was trying to say in my earlier message.\n\n> The motion is about this:\n> \n> Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting\n> our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on\n> git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said\n> it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our\n> official home page, either, for that matter).\n> \n> It is silly for us to have to say \"Ehh, that is a logo that was\n> randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our\n> official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody\n> else. Go talk to them.\", every time such a request comes.\n> \n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n> \n> That is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n> \n> So,... seconds?\n\nI do not know if I count, as I am listed as one of the proposers in your\noriginal message. But yes, I agree with this.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"238771","messageId":"20140412123419.GD14820@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140411132448.GA5845@nysa.casa.local","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2014-04-12T12:34:19Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-12T12:34:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n\n> I would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this\n> question;\n> \n> Have you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against\n> change, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com, and related\n> stuff?\n\nIs this rhetorical? If not...\n\nYes, I really thought about the logo and like it.\n\nMany of your complaints are about how git concepts map onto the logo\n(for instance, the direction of the graph nodes). That is _one_ way of\nevaluating the logo.\n\nBut there are other criteria, as well. For example, is the logo pleasing\nto the eye? Is it memorable and recognizable? Things like \"pleasing\" are\nsubjective, but there are patterns across humanity. Graphic artists have\nstudied this for some time and have guidelines for layouts, contrast,\nbalance, proportionality, etc.\n\nFor example, in the git-fc logo you mentioned, you rotated the logo from\ngit-scm.com. I find it less visually pleasing than the original. It\nseems somehow more \"wobbly\" to me with the two branches sticking up.\nNow, that is my completely subjective opinion. I do not know very much\nabout graphic design, and whether guidelines could help there, nor did I\nconduct any empirical research. So maybe it is just me, or maybe one\ndesign is universally more pleasing than the other.\n\nBut I think that visual art considerations should be at least as\nimportant in a logo as whether the logo pedantically matches the tool's\noutput.\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"238773","messageId":"53494780bc447_c9914c730841@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"20140412123419.GD14820@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-12T14:02:40Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-12T14:02:40Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Jeff King wrote:\n> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 08:24:48AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n> \n> > I would actually like you (everyone) to be honest and answer this\n> > question;\n> > \n> > Have you actually analized the logo? Or are you just arguing against\n> > change, because the logo is already used by git-scm.com, and related\n> > stuff?\n> \n> Is this rhetorical? If not...\n\nIt was, because I was pretty sure the answer was mostly the later.\n\n> Yes, I really thought about the logo and like it.\n> \n> Many of your complaints are about how git concepts map onto the logo\n> (for instance, the direction of the graph nodes). That is _one_ way of\n> evaluating the logo.\n\nThere are many ways of evaluating the logo, and they are not exclusive.\n\n> But there are other criteria, as well. For example, is the logo pleasing\n> to the eye? Is it memorable and recognizable? Things like \"pleasing\" are\n> subjective, but there are patterns across humanity. Graphic artists have\n> studied this for some time and have guidelines for layouts, contrast,\n> balance, proportionality, etc.\n\nYes, that is _also_ important, but so is the fact that the logo should have\ncorrect Git concepts, because the main target audience for the logo is\nprogrammers.\n\n> For example, in the git-fc logo you mentioned, you rotated the logo from\n> git-scm.com. I find it less visually pleasing than the original. It\n> seems somehow more \"wobbly\" to me with the two branches sticking up.\n> Now, that is my completely subjective opinion. I do not know very much\n> about graphic design, and whether guidelines could help there, nor did I\n> conduct any empirical research. So maybe it is just me, or maybe one\n> design is universally more pleasing than the other.\n\nI've been playing with different logos myself, trying to see if I can come up\nwith something different (rather than modifying the one done by GitHub). I've\nyet to come with something that I think might be superior, but I think I might\nbe able to do more improvements now.\n\nSo I have to agree on this; the direction of the nodes in the current logo does\nseem to be more aesthetically pleasing than my own.\n\nHowever, you left the colour of the logo completely untouched by your analysis,\nand the colour is extremely important.\n\n> But I think that visual art considerations should be at least as\n> important in a logo as whether the logo pedantically matches the tool's\n> output.\n\n*Both* are important, as are many other considerations.\n\nIn short my concern is that *if* we are to pick an official logo, we shouldn't\ndo it blindly, as it appears the logo done by GitHub wasn't reviewed at all by\nthe community. Fortunately as Junio clarified; this is not a discussion to\nofficialize the logo (albeit the title implying so).\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"238808","messageId":"CALZVapneysw+1RkYKN=v7oMgrGO7hRdzCnES7OGybV4g9Vqnxw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CALZVapkdr5R8h3XWwmo3LHEXnMrOQhzVCw2LwP5oRbJ=MVnbUg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Javier Domingo Cansino","fromEmail":"javierdo1@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-13T08:53:07Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-13T08:53:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"javierdo1@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/0f43d4d2e5f4320e8b5e1a46914213c5459dd0de261ab1587f222827f863d727?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"I think it is a suitable logo. It might not be the one I would think\nof, but I see with good eyes using it as one of the project logos.\n\nJavier Domingo Cansino\n"},{"id":"238820","messageId":"CALbm-EY1LADM+=hswhF9BobEbfCNE2jGiOVGc5Dmo853zc6wCQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CALZVapneysw+1RkYKN=v7oMgrGO7hRdzCnES7OGybV4g9Vqnxw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Stefan Beller","fromEmail":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-14T08:28:58Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-14T08:28:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"stefanbeller@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/455868?v=4"},"body":"So this is really bikeshedding at its finest.\n\nI'd personally do agree on the logo proposed in the first mail by Junio.\nHowever who is the core community, who am I to judge?\n\nSo maybe the decision process on this issue may need a more centrally\nsteered opinion,\nso why not call for votes and weight the votes by #number of commits in git.git?\n\n\n\n\n2014-04-13 10:53 GMT+02:00 Javier Domingo Cansino :\n>\n> I think it is a suitable logo. It might not be the one I would think\n> of, but I see with good eyes using it as one of the project logos.\n>\n> Javier Domingo Cansino\n> --\n> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line \"unsubscribe git\" in\n> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org\n> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html\n"},{"id":"238822","messageId":"CABPQNSYgpr4LCbHaXYwG4ELphwCthCAAo1oZZTPQZYiA4Y6t8A@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"xmqqr453sm76.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Erik Faye-Lund","fromEmail":"kusmabite@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-14T13:39:22Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-14T13:39:22Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"kusmabite@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/47073?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> The motion is about this:\n>\n> Outside people, like the party who approached us about putting\n> our logo on their trinket, seem to associate that logo we see on\n> git-scm.com today with our project, but we never officially said\n> it was our logo (we did not endorse that git-scm.com is our\n> official home page, either, for that matter).\n>\n> It is silly for us to have to say \"Ehh, that is a logo that was\n> randomly done and slapped on git-scm.com which is not even our\n> official home page, and the logo is licensed CC-BY by somebody\n> else. Go talk to them.\", every time such a request comes.\n>\n> Please help us by letting us answer \"Yup, that is a logo (among\n> others) that represents our project, and we are OK with you\n> using it to help promote our project\" instead.\n>\n> That is what I meant by \"our official logo\" in the first message.\n>\n> So,... seconds?\n\nSeconded.\n"},{"id":"239151","messageId":"5354099352a87_18fb153d2ecd2@nysa.notmuch","threadId":"36372","inReplyTo":"CALbm-EY1LADM+=hswhF9BobEbfCNE2jGiOVGc5Dmo853zc6wCQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Our official home page and logo for the Git project","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2014-04-20T17:53:23Z","receivedAt":"2014-04-20T17:53:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"Stefan Beller wrote:\n> So this is really bikeshedding at its finest.\n\nYou don't seem to understand what is bikeshedding. The reason a bikeshed is\nused as reference is because the primary function of a bikeshed is to store\nbikes, and therefore the color of the bikeshed doesn't really matter.\n\nA logo is not a bikeshed, the color does matter. I challenge you to tell a\nbride that the she is bikeshedding while choosing the color of the dresses for\nher bridemaids.\n\nSometimes color does matter.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"}]}