Switched to Inter #33

Merged
lhinderberger merged 2 commits from :new-house-font into master 2 years ago

This PR replaces Rubik and Tajawal with the font suggested in Codeberg/Design#18

I'm using the variable-width variant for this PR.

Before and After screenshots are attached. Comments are very welcome.

Quite annoyingly, I had to rename the font to "Codeberg House Font" for this PR, as "Inter" is a Reserved Font Name and the SIL OFL 1.1 says (highly simplified) that Modified Versions cannot use Reserved Font Names and that (again, simplified) distributing only parts of a font constitutes a Modified Version. The alternative would have been to push ~25MB of font data to the repository.

(As always with legal topics: I am not a lawyer)

This PR replaces Rubik and Tajawal with the font suggested in Codeberg/Design#18 I'm using the variable-width variant for this PR. Before and After screenshots are attached. Comments are very welcome. Quite annoyingly, I had to rename the font to "Codeberg House Font" for this PR, as "Inter" is a Reserved Font Name and the SIL OFL 1.1 says (highly simplified) that Modified Versions cannot use Reserved Font Names and that (again, simplified) distributing only parts of a font constitutes a Modified Version. The alternative would have been to push ~25MB of font data to the repository. (As always with legal topics: I am not a lawyer)
lhinderberger added the
Part: Generator
Status: Blocked
Status: Needs feedback
labels 2 years ago

I like it. Readability does indeed improve in my eyes.
I don't get why the ranaming had to happen. As far as I understand this only is relevant if you distribute the font, not if you use it. Of course serving a webpage can technically be seen as distribution, but in terms of legal sense i think it is fine to just keep using the original name. Especially if people can avoid downloading an exact copy of the font that just has a different name.

Btw, why did you not change the font on the headline "Documentation"?

Using Tajawal and the logo-symbol in that arrangement is a bit problematic in my eyes: while we may want things to lean towards the logo in terms of color and style they can end up being somewhat too close…

I like it. Readability does indeed improve in my eyes. I don't get why the ranaming had to happen. As far as I understand this only is relevant if you *distribute* the font, not if you *use* it. Of course serving a webpage can technically be seen as distribution, but in terms of legal sense i think it is fine to just keep using the original name. Especially if people can avoid downloading an exact copy of the font that just has a different name. Btw, why did you not change the font on the headline "Documentation"? Using Tajawal and the logo-symbol in that arrangement is a bit problematic in my eyes: while we may want things to lean towards the logo in terms of color and style they can end up being somewhat too close…

Oh, and also thank you for so quickly adopting the guidelines, makes me happy to see them being put to good use :D

Oh, and also thank you for so quickly adopting the guidelines, makes me happy to see them being put to good use :D

image What's the issue ? ^_^

![image](/attachments/69e3698d-f5d6-4493-af30-9244de700a1f) What's the issue ? ^_^
1.2 KiB
Poster

I don't get why the ranaming had to happen.

Because of Inter being a Reserved Font Name and the legal ambiguity you already pointed out, I like to be on the safe side. We could however just go and ask the developers of the Inter font, if they're okay with us redistributing a part of their font without changing the name.

Btw, why did you not change the font on the headline "Documentation"?

I considered the site name part of the logo and as you said in the issue at Codeberg/Design, Tajawal remains the logo font, so I didn't change it.

Please elaborate on what you mean with "too close".

> I don't get why the ranaming had to happen. Because of Inter being a Reserved Font Name and the legal ambiguity you already pointed out, I like to be on the safe side. We could however just go and ask the developers of the Inter font, if they're okay with us redistributing a part of their font without changing the name. > Btw, why did you not change the font on the headline "Documentation"? I considered the site name part of the logo and as you said in the issue at Codeberg/Design, Tajawal remains the logo font, so I didn't change it. Please elaborate on what you mean with "too close".
Poster

Oh, and also thank you for so quickly adopting the guidelines, makes me happy to see them being put to good use :D

Well, thank you for the praise, but that wasn't even my intention 😄

I have not yet adopted the new font, that's why this issue is a WIP. It exists to test-drive Inter and to be merged once Codeberg/Design#18 closes with a decision in favor of Inter as our new house font.

To be honest, I have my issues with the Inter font. I don't think it looks that much nicer than what we already have and the size and legal issues make it unnecessarily hard to work with from the technical side.

> Oh, and also thank you for so quickly adopting the guidelines, makes me happy to see them being put to good use :D Well, thank you for the praise, but that wasn't even my intention :smile: I have not yet adopted the new font, that's why this issue is a WIP. It exists to test-drive Inter and to be merged once Codeberg/Design#18 closes with a decision in favor of Inter as our new house font. To be honest, I have my issues with the Inter font. I don't think it looks that much nicer than what we already have and the size and legal issues make it unnecessarily hard to work with from the technical side.
Poster

What's the issue ? ^_^

Oh, just the issue with the logo font. After discussing that point already in Codeberg/Design and clarifying that Tajawal stays the font, it seemed a bit like a mixed message now to critizise the PR for using Tajawal as the logo font 😉

Also, with the legal question, I'm generally not in favor of prioritizing performance over compliance.

> What's the issue ? ^_^ Oh, just the issue with the logo font. After discussing that point already in Codeberg/Design and clarifying that Tajawal stays the font, it seemed a bit like a mixed message now to critizise the PR for using Tajawal as the logo font :wink: Also, with the legal question, I'm generally not in favor of prioritizing performance over compliance.

…Inter being a Reserved Font Name…

I have to admitt I never thought about this being an issue when applying webfonts. If I understand you creectly that woul dmean that only the homepage of the original developer could make use of that particular font name as any other webpage would technically be redistributing?

Please elaborate on what you mean with “too close”.

Sure. When creating a brand your goal is to create a recognizable combination of shapes, colrs and text that instantly make you go "I know that" – on a very deep level. Repetition plays a great role on that. The more you are noticing the exact recurring brand, the easier you start noticing it in other places.

By having a second variation that uses the mark+symbol combination with the same font and color (slight spacing and fontsize variations aside) you create a second "Codeberg" with the name of "Documentation", which isn't a proper logo, and – given the context – probably will be recognized by people as such. Because they know that "Codeberg" is the actual name, and Documentation is what they are searching for to learn hot to use it.

Still – you create a "non-valid" copy of the logo that you want to consistently be present.

(This is why it is often hammered into peoples heads to not not alter any aspect of the logo at all, too. Like aspect ratio, spacing, recoloring, …)

> …Inter being a Reserved Font Name… I have to admitt I never thought about this being an issue when applying webfonts. If I understand you creectly that woul dmean that only the homepage of the original developer could make use of that particular font name as any other webpage would technically be redistributing? > Please elaborate on what you mean with “too close”. Sure. When creating a brand your goal is to create a recognizable combination of shapes, colrs and text that instantly make you go "I know that" – on a very deep level. Repetition plays a great role on that. The more you are noticing the exact recurring brand, the easier you start noticing it in other places. By having a second variation that uses the mark+symbol combination with the same font and color (slight spacing and fontsize variations aside) you create a second "Codeberg" with the name of "Documentation", which isn't a proper logo, and – given the context – probably will be recognized by people as such. Because they know that "Codeberg" is the actual name, and Documentation is what they are searching for to learn hot to use it. Still – you create a "non-valid" copy of the logo that you want to consistently be present. (This is why it is often hammered into peoples heads to not not alter any aspect of the logo at all, too. Like aspect ratio, spacing, recoloring, …)
Poster

If I understand you creectly that woul dmean that only the homepage of the original developer could make use of that particular font name as any other webpage would technically be redistributing?

The usual disclaimer first: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice and this reflects only my personal opinion.

Redistributing an unmodified font ("Original Version") under SIL OFL 1.1 does not automatically require renaming the font, no. But redistributing a Modified Version of the font most of the time does (unless for example the Copyright Holder grants permission to do so) EDIT: IF the copyright owner has specified a Reserved Font Name.

So the question now is, do we ship a Modified Version? Looking at the definition of "Modified Version" in the OFL, I'd personally tend to "yes", because by distributing only the WOFF2 part of the font, we have effectively deleted large parts of the original distribution.

Another interpretation could be the one of "Functional Equivalence", as made in the OFL FAQ - but the authors of the FAQ more or less advise against it. I also do not know how they derived that argumentation from the text of the license.

I recommend to read the OFL 1.1 in full text (it's not very long 😉).

Please elaborate on what you mean with “too close”.

Sure. [...]

Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, you say that the Codeberg logo should remain the only real logo, with the sub-sites using only the "mountain", but using Inter as the font for what would then effectively not be their logo but the "main heading"?

> If I understand you creectly that woul dmean that only the homepage of the original developer could make use of that particular font name as any other webpage would technically be redistributing? The usual disclaimer first: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice and this reflects only my personal opinion. Redistributing an unmodified font ("Original Version") under SIL OFL 1.1 does not automatically require renaming the font, no. But redistributing a Modified Version of the font most of the time does (unless for example the Copyright Holder grants permission to do so) EDIT: IF the copyright owner has specified a Reserved Font Name. So the question now is, do we ship a Modified Version? Looking at the definition of "Modified Version" in the OFL, I'd personally tend to "yes", because by distributing only the WOFF2 part of the font, we have effectively deleted large parts of the original distribution. Another interpretation could be the one of "Functional Equivalence", [as made in the OFL FAQ](https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=OFL-FAQ_web#f1d3d326) - but the authors of the FAQ more or less advise against it. I also do not know how they derived that argumentation from the text of the license. I recommend to read the OFL 1.1 in full text (it's not very long :wink:). > > Please elaborate on what you mean with “too close”. > > Sure. [...] Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, you say that the Codeberg logo should remain the only real logo, with the sub-sites using only the "mountain", but using Inter as the font for what would then effectively not be their logo but the "main heading"?
Poster

It turns out, the Inter project has specified Inter as a Reserved Font Name only a couple of days ago.

I have asked them to remove the RFN again, because it's a breaking change that probably comes as a surprise to most users: https://github.com/rsms/inter/issues/282#issuecomment-679101122

So let's see how that issue develops - maybe the legal problems with the font just disappear :)

It turns out, the Inter project has specified Inter as a Reserved Font Name only a couple of days ago. I have asked them to remove the RFN again, because it's a breaking change that probably comes as a surprise to most users: https://github.com/rsms/inter/issues/282#issuecomment-679101122 So let's see how that issue develops - maybe the legal problems with the font just disappear :)
Poster

Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, you say that the Codeberg logo should remain the only real logo, with the sub-sites using only the "mountain", but using Inter as the font for what would then effectively not be their logo but the "main heading"?

@mray My question went a bit under the radar, I'm afraid, so here it is again. ;)

If yes, then the next question would be if it's acceptable to let everything (color, spacing etc.) except the font face of the heading be as it is?

> Thank you. So, if I understood you correctly, you say that the Codeberg logo should remain the only real logo, with the sub-sites using only the "mountain", but using Inter as the font for what would then effectively not be their logo but the "main heading"? @mray My question went a bit under the radar, I'm afraid, so here it is again. ;) If yes, then the next question would be if it's acceptable to let everything (color, spacing etc.) *except* the font face of the heading be as it is?
Poster

Thinking about it, a way around the whole font name controversy could be to start a new project called for example Codeberg/Fonts which serves as our private font hosting page for all Codeberg projects. There, it could potentially be possible to add the fonts that we depend on as git submodules, and host them there centrally, unmodified, in their entirety.

That would have the additional advantage of having only one point where fonts get delivered, thus avoiding double downloads.

Taking things one step further, we could (in the future) even encourage Codeberg Pages users to use the fonts hosted there, reducing the probability that people embed Google Fonts and similar services.

Thinking about it, a way around the whole font name controversy could be to start a new project called for example `Codeberg/Fonts` which serves as our private font hosting page for all Codeberg projects. There, it could potentially be possible to add the fonts that we depend on as git submodules, and host them there centrally, unmodified, in their entirety. That would have the additional advantage of having only one point where fonts get delivered, thus avoiding double downloads. Taking things one step further, we could (in the future) even encourage Codeberg Pages users to use the fonts hosted there, reducing the probability that people embed Google Fonts and similar services.
hw commented 2 years ago
Owner

To start, this could be a simple pages repo in a dedicated org?

To start, this could be a simple pages repo in a dedicated org?
Poster

If we don't use submodules for now and manually update the fonts for each new release, yes (some fonts, including Inter, require a build step when cloning them from source).

I think manually managing the fonts at this point is totally okay. In the long run, an automated approach with git submodules would be extra cool 😎

If we don't use submodules for now and manually update the fonts for each new release, yes (some fonts, including Inter, require a build step when cloning them from source). I think manually managing the fonts at this point is totally okay. In the long run, an automated approach with git submodules would be extra cool :sunglasses:
hw commented 2 years ago
Owner

Idea of pages repo is to separate sources (dedicated repo) and delivery content (pages repo)...

Idea of pages repo is to separate sources (dedicated repo) and delivery content (pages repo)...
Poster

True - Then using submodules is of course no problem.

I suggest we create a codeberg-fonts organization, mirror the fonts we want to use (that's currently Inter and FontAwesome, in their entirety) and use submodules for the integration source repository. If you're okay with that, I could do that and add you as an admin to the new org.

True - Then using submodules is of course no problem. I suggest we create a `codeberg-fonts` organization, mirror the fonts we want to use (that's currently Inter and FontAwesome, in their entirety) and use submodules for the integration source repository. If you're okay with that, I could do that and add you as an admin to the new org.
hw commented 2 years ago
Owner

Sounds good. Let me know when you set up the pages there, then we can redirect https://fonts.codeberg.org/ to this org/pages repo.

Sounds good. Let me know when you set up the pages there, then we can redirect https://fonts.codeberg.org/ to this org/pages repo.

If yes, then the next question would be if it’s acceptable to let everything (color, spacing etc.) except the font face of the heading be as it is?

To give a qualified answer I guess I would need to know a few more facts:

  • in how far are we actually talking about a separate project, how "different" are they to Codeberg?
  • how many of those projects would there be?
  • how do those projects compare in terms of scale & importance among each other?
  • how different are the projects among each other generally?
  • how relevant is it for the projects to maintain an "image" for a broader audience?
> If yes, then the next question would be if it’s acceptable to let everything (color, spacing etc.) except the font face of the heading be as it is? To give a qualified answer I guess I would need to know a few more facts: * in how far are we actually talking about a separate project, how "different" are they to Codeberg? * how many of those projects would there be? * how do those projects compare in terms of scale & importance among each other? * how different are the projects among each other generally? * how relevant is it for the projects to maintain an "image" for a broader audience?
Poster

I'm afraid I'm unable to give a correct answer about questions about long-term strategy and positioning of projects/sub-projects, as right now I'm personally not aware of discussions or decisions in that direction.

Maybe @hw knows more? And maybe these questions even need their own discussion, because it's essentialy the question, where we want to go to.

My uneducated guess would be:

  • My idea for Codeberg Documentation is that it serves as a guide to new users and as a place to centralize documentation for all Codeberg projects. It wouldn't make sense to run Codeberg Documentation without the services that Codeberg offers. Thus it's not independent.
  • How many projects: Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea#17 lists various possible services for the future - I don't know about the concrete status of these though
  • Relative scale & imporance: That's hard to tell in advance. Trying to plan that service A will be larger than service B in advance might collide with reality, where users might adopt service B much quicker than service A. So, I can't answer that.
  • Difference between projects: As far as I can see, they're all related to open-source software in one way or another. Everything else would probably even risk clashing with our nonprofit bylaws.
  • Image: I don't think that each projects needs an independent image, it should work quite well to unify them under the Codeberg brand.

Again, that's just my personal uneducated guess. 😉

I'm afraid I'm unable to give a correct answer about questions about long-term strategy and positioning of projects/sub-projects, as right now I'm personally not aware of discussions or decisions in that direction. Maybe @hw knows more? And maybe these questions even need their own discussion, because it's essentialy the question, where we want to go to. My *uneducated* guess would be: - My idea for Codeberg Documentation is that it serves as a guide to new users and as a place to centralize documentation for all Codeberg projects. It wouldn't make sense to run Codeberg Documentation without the services that Codeberg offers. Thus it's not independent. - How many projects: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/pulls/17 lists various possible services for the future - I don't know about the concrete status of these though - Relative scale & imporance: That's hard to tell in advance. Trying to plan that service A will be larger than service B in advance might collide with reality, where users might adopt service B much quicker than service A. So, I can't answer that. - Difference between projects: As far as I can see, they're all related to open-source software in one way or another. Everything else would probably even risk clashing with our nonprofit bylaws. - Image: I don't think that each projects needs an independent image, it should work quite well to unify them under the Codeberg brand. Again, that's just my personal uneducated guess. :wink:
Poster

@hw I have now created the codeberg-fonts organization.

I will go ahead and build the site ASAP.

As for the submodule approach, a quick update: After looking at issues with font licensing (such as the breaking change in Inter licensing or the brand icons in Fontawesome), I now think that it would be better to not mirror the repositories of fonts and to not include them as submodules, but to manually review new releases of the fonts and to write a script that downloads them and applies patches as needed, for example removing the legally questionable brand icons from FontAwesome.

@hw I have now created the codeberg-fonts organization. I will go ahead and build the site ASAP. As for the submodule approach, a quick update: After looking at issues with font licensing (such as the breaking change in Inter licensing or the brand icons in Fontawesome), I now think that it would be better to not mirror the repositories of fonts and to not include them as submodules, but to manually review new releases of the fonts and to write a script that downloads them and applies patches as needed, for example removing the legally questionable brand icons from FontAwesome.

removing the legally questionable brand icons from FontAwesome.

I think that's not ever going to be a problem as long as we don't use the logos. Even given the fact that we use them – fair use would cover it in most cases anyway I guess.

My uneducated guess would be:…

Thanks for your point of view. I didn't think you to could an offical view just like that on all points. But your assessment generally fits my expectation. So without seeing the complete picture it looks like I would try to put everything under one "Codeberg" roof with one logo.

If there were multiple efforts like "Documentation – like https://readthedocs.org/" or "codeberg pages – like netlify" with a seprate codebase that can be applied without gitea, that would be another case.

Regarding your question about a logo that would mean to establish divisions of Codeberg that would consist of the Codeberg logo plus an addition like:

@Codeberg
_PAGES

@Codeberg
_DOCS

@Codeberg
_CHAT

but never:

@Pages

@Docs

@Chat

or even:

@Pages
Codeberg

@Docs
Codeberg

@Chat
Codeberg

The important thing is to leave the original Codeberg mark intact and not replace parts of it with a division replacement.

Does that help?

> removing the legally questionable brand icons from FontAwesome. I think that's not ever going to be a problem as long as we don't use the logos. Even given the fact that we use them – fair use would cover it in most cases anyway I guess. > My uneducated guess would be:… Thanks for your point of view. I didn't think you to could an offical view just like that on all points. But your assessment generally fits my expectation. So without seeing the complete picture it looks like I would try to put everything under one "Codeberg" roof with one logo. If there were multiple efforts like "Documentation – like https://readthedocs.org/" or "codeberg pages – like netlify" with a seprate codebase that can be applied without gitea, that would be another case. Regarding your question about a logo that would mean to establish divisions of Codeberg that would consist of the Codeberg logo plus an addition like: @Codeberg _PAGES @Codeberg _DOCS @Codeberg _CHAT but never: @Pages @Docs @Chat or even: @Pages Codeberg @Docs Codeberg @Chat Codeberg The important thing is to leave the original Codeberg mark intact and not replace parts of it with a division replacement. Does that help?
Poster

fair use would cover it in most cases anyway I guess.

AFAIK, in German law (which applies to Codeberg) there's no real Fair Use law that's equivalent to what exists for example in the USA. The closest thing I can think of is "Urheberrechtsschranken" which is complex, to put it mildly 😅

Also, while we might not be actively using them, by putting them up on the website we'd still be redistributing them. Which is all it takes to violate copyright, I'm afraid.

So I'd rather remove them. As of right now and as far as I'm aware of, Font Awesome hasn't specified a RFN, so removing parts of the font is much easier 😉

Does that help?

Yes, thank you! 👍 I'm confident that I now have understood your intentions.
I will prepare a new version of the heading, upload it to a separate PR (to not over-burden this PR here even more 😄) and ask for your feedback there.

> fair use would cover it in most cases anyway I guess. AFAIK, in German law (which applies to Codeberg) there's no real Fair Use law that's equivalent to what exists for example in the USA. The closest thing I can think of is "Urheberrechtsschranken" which is [complex](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schranken_des_Urheberrechts), to put it mildly 😅 Also, while we might not be actively using them, by putting them up on the website we'd still be redistributing them. Which is all it takes to violate copyright, I'm afraid. So I'd rather remove them. As of right now and as far as I'm aware of, Font Awesome hasn't specified a RFN, so removing parts of the font is much easier :wink: > Does that help? Yes, thank you! :thumbsup: I'm confident that I now have understood your intentions. I will prepare a new version of the heading, upload it to a separate PR (to not over-burden this PR here even more :smile:) and ask for your feedback there.

Concerning redistribution and copyright violation, I think this remains irrellevant as long as you don't even display the logo. If distribution would become an issue for an involved partry my guess would be the first to know would be the font awesome team. Then the fork awesome team, and only then pages that use font awesome.

Since we don't use any such logos and I don't have to remove them I'm happy to ship a smaller font (would it be re-downloaded or used from cache from other site visists btw?)

Concerning redistribution and copyright violation, I think this remains irrellevant as long as you don't even display the logo. If distribution would become an issue for an involved partry my guess would be the first to know would be the font awesome team. Then the fork awesome team, and only then pages that *use* font awesome. Since we don't use any such logos and I don't have to remove them I'm happy to ship a smaller font (would it be re-downloaded or used from cache from other site visists btw?)
Poster

It seems we're approaching the question of Copyright very differently. Let's agree to disagree on that one. 😉

Since we don't use any such logos and I don't have to remove them I'm happy to ship a smaller font (would it be re-downloaded or used from cache from other site visists btw?)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you mean with you dont have to remove them in relation to shipping a smaller font?

Concerning caching: As long as the web server sends the right HTTP headers with the fonts, I think we'll be able to reduce unnecessary re-downloading for the average user, yes.

If you prefer, we can move the technical fonts discussion to https://codeberg.org/codeberg-fonts/codeberg-fonts/issues

It seems we're approaching the question of Copyright very differently. Let's agree to disagree on that one. :wink: > Since we don't use any such logos and I don't have to remove them I'm happy to ship a smaller font (would it be re-downloaded or used from cache from other site visists btw?) I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. What do you mean with you dont have to remove them in relation to shipping a smaller font? Concerning caching: As long as the web server sends the right HTTP headers with the fonts, I think we'll be able to reduce unnecessary re-downloading for the average user, yes. If you prefer, we can move the technical fonts discussion to https://codeberg.org/codeberg-fonts/codeberg-fonts/issues

What do you mean with you dont have to remove them in relation to shipping a smaller font?

There is no realtion. I like that the shipped font gets smaller (faster) - unrelated to that I'm also not the one doing the extra work. So I'm fine no matter what.

> What do you mean with you dont have to remove them in relation to shipping a smaller font? There is no realtion. I like that the shipped font gets smaller (faster) - unrelated to that I'm also not the one doing the extra work. So I'm fine no matter what.
hw commented 2 years ago
Owner

Concerning caching: As long as the web server sends the right HTTP headers with the fonts, I think we'll be able to reduce unnecessary re-downloading for the average user, yes.

Something we should optimize as soon this becomes an issue.

If you prefer, we can move the technical fonts discussion to https://codeberg.org/codeberg-fonts/codeberg-fonts/issues

yes!

> Concerning caching: As long as the web server sends the right HTTP headers with the fonts, I think we'll be able to reduce unnecessary re-downloading for the average user, yes. Something we should optimize as soon this becomes an issue. > If you prefer, we can move the technical fonts discussion to https://codeberg.org/codeberg-fonts/codeberg-fonts/issues > yes!
lhinderberger added a new dependency 2 years ago
lhinderberger changed title from WIP: Switched to variable-width house font derived from Inter to Switched to variable-width house font derived from Inter 2 years ago
lhinderberger added
Status: Ready for Review
and removed
Status: Blocked
Status: Needs feedback
labels 2 years ago
Poster

With Codeberg Fonts now being operational, I will merge this PR now, minus fixing the heading, which is moved to #44

With Codeberg Fonts now being operational, I will merge this PR now, minus fixing the heading, which is moved to #44
lhinderberger changed title from Switched to variable-width house font derived from Inter to Switched to Inter 2 years ago
lhinderberger merged commit fbbac5f91d into master 2 years ago
lhinderberger deleted branch new-house-font 2 years ago
The pull request has been merged as fbbac5f91d.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Blocks Depends on
#33 Bug: Pages can't handle spaces in URLs
Codeberg-Infrastructure/build-deploy-gitea
Loading…
There is no content yet.