Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 2/4] docs: Upgrade Overpass fonts to 3.0

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:28:33PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 03:23:55PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:05:52PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > > Since we are useing Overpass for the web pages, we might be using the > > s/useing/using/ > > > > latest version. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > --- > > > > > > Notes: > > > I'm not sure where Dan got the hinted versions. Also what version > > > that is. The upstream repository of the Overpass font is unusable for > > > > The previous version was only officially avaiable in TTF format, so I > > used transfonter to generate the web font version: > > > > http://transfonter.org/ > > > > I enabled hinting since it was said to display better in Windows, but > > I have no way of checking that personally. I don't think it is particularly > > important - unless you really want to test windows I'd just stick to the > > official woff files. > > > > > getting any info. So I also removed 'thin' and 'heavy' versions (with > > > their "extra" variants. > > > > You seem to have added as many variants as you removed, so not sure about > > this last sentance. > There are more variants in v3.0 than there were before. So I removed the ones that were not in the previous version so that I add as many variants as I remove =) > Oh but ACK regardless - please don't resend this huge patch just push > it :-) > Sorry for that. I was initially thinking that we could just add the repo as another submodule, that wouldn't add that much data to our git, neither would it make me send such a huge patch. The next patch would be also big, but I forgot to 'git add' the monospace woff files. Let me know if you are in favor of the submodule rather and if not, I'll push these three patches and will wait for the consensus on 4/4 that could be slightly better as mentioned in other thread.