From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: Cleanup Git logo and Git logo target generation Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:54:31 -0700 Message-ID: <7vac46gvg8.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20060919212725.GA13132@pasky.or.cz> <7vac4qs43g.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200610061231.06017.jnareb@gmail.com> <7vwt7aio8l.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20061008201031.GL20017@pasky.or.cz> <7vbqomim46.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 09 02:57:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWjPr-0005wC-Gn for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:54:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751571AbWJIAyd (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:54:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751572AbWJIAyd (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:54:33 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:1273 "EHLO fed1rmmtao12.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751569AbWJIAyc (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:54:32 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061009005432.VEIU26416.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:54:32 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id Y0ua1V00U1kojtg0000000 Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:54:35 -0400 To: Jakub Narebski User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski writes: > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Petr Baudis writes: >> >>> Is there a problem with taking <200610061231.06017.jnareb@gmail.com>? >>> >>> I think it's currently not worth the complexity and breakage of >>> backwards compatibility to do the more elaborate form you proposed. >> >> I agree with that, except that the 72x27 dimension bit troubles >> me. > > First, that's the problem for the future. The 72x27 was there, I have not > introduced this. That's exactly my point. This is not a "placing blame" game. It just feels wrong to update only two things when we already know there are others that need fixing in a very similar way.