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

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 10:57:06AM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> 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 at redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > 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.

I don't think we need the complication that submodules brings - its likely
to be many years before we care about getting an update


Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-    http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|