Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update logo #128

Merged
merged 14 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023
Merged

Update logo #128

merged 14 commits into from
Oct 24, 2023

Conversation

hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor

@hyrodium hyrodium commented Jun 1, 2023

This PR adds the logo to the documentation page, and updates the Makefile.

x-ref: #119 (comment)

image

image

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 1, 2023

Codecov Report

Merging #128 (59bf13e) into master (fb3d3bd) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #128   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   76.80%   76.80%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines         763      763           
=======================================
  Hits          586      586           
  Misses        177      177           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 76.80% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

hyrodium commented Jun 1, 2023

Hmm, the logo with the white stroke on the documenter-light mode does not look good to me. Maybe, a transparent stroke version would be better?

badge

image

image

@fingolfin
Copy link
Collaborator

nice!!

Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@fingolfin
Copy link
Collaborator

I personally prefer the non-transparent of the logo slightly, but in the end, I am fine either way. Perhaps @lgoettgens has a preference? Anyway, I am also happy to merge-as is, as I think this is an improvement either way. Thank you!

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Collaborator

I personally prefer the non-transparent of the logo slightly, but in the end, I am fine either way. Perhaps @lgoettgens has a preference? Anyway, I am also happy to merge-as is, as I think this is an improvement either way. Thank you!

I like the non-transparent more as well, but no strong preference.

@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

hyrodium commented Jun 2, 2023

Thank you for the suggestions on the logo. I will update the logo design tomorrow, so please wait until then to merge this PR😀.

@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

hyrodium commented Jun 3, 2023

I made five more variations for the stroke colors.
Which color would be best?

Aqua blue

badge

image

image

Julia blue

badge

image

image

Same white color as in the documenter background

badge

image

image

No stroke

badge

image

image

Another aqua color (#ACDBDA)

I personally like this color version, but this approach also changes the color of the badge.

badge

image

image

@fingolfin
Copy link
Collaborator

I've played a bit more with the SVG, trying to make it work with a double outline.

With two equally thick outlines:

aqua-logo-double-outline-thick-light aqua-logo-double-outline-thick-dark

With a thick white and a thin black outline:

aqua-logo-double-outline-thin-light aqua-logo-double-outline-thin-dark

@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

hyrodium commented Jun 5, 2023

I feel it's better without double outline.🤓

@gdalle
Copy link
Contributor

gdalle commented Oct 12, 2023

I like no stroke or documenter white

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Collaborator

This needs a rebase.

And I really have no real preference, but like the "documenter white" one a bit more

@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, I'll update this PR with documenter-white. 👍

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Collaborator

Please have a look at the code-style CI job and try to make it happy :)

@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think the format suggestion from the bot can be improved like in ChainRulesCore.jl. (JuliaDiff/ChainRulesCore.jl#626 (comment))

Can I open a PR for that?

@lgoettgens lgoettgens modified the milestones: 0.8, 0.7.x Oct 16, 2023
@lgoettgens
Copy link
Collaborator

I think the format suggestion from the bot can be improved like in ChainRulesCore.jl. (JuliaDiff/ChainRulesCore.jl#626 (comment))

Can I open a PR for that?

Yeah, of course. It would be great to have that.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lgoettgens lgoettgens left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The look is fine. Some technical comments

Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Makefile Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@lgoettgens lgoettgens enabled auto-merge (squash) October 24, 2023 08:00
@lgoettgens lgoettgens merged commit 01c98d9 into JuliaTesting:master Oct 24, 2023
23 checks passed
@hyrodium
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for the review & merge!

@lgoettgens
Copy link
Collaborator

Thank You for the effort in this PR!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants