Reorganization of profiles (deprecate UFO, Shaping and Outline profiles) #4812
Conversation
The UFO profile was removed and its checks were migrated to the Universal profile. For that reason, all of them received a temporary "experimental" flag. Those checks will only run when actual UFO projects are passed to fontbakery. (issue fonttools#4801)
The Shaping profile was also removed and its checks migrated to the Google Fonts profile. As gfonts was already including those, and no other profile did so, there's no need to add experimental flags to these ones. (issue fonttools#4801)
The Outline profile was also removed and its checks migrated to the Google Fonts profile. As gfonts was already including those, and no other profile did so, there's no need to add experimental flags to these ones. (issue fonttools#4801)
felipesanches
force-pushed
the
issue_4801
branch
from
d583f3d
to
2cf1027
Compare
| @@ -5,6 +5,20 @@ | |||
| "com.google.fonts/check/superfamily/list", | |||
| "com.google.fonts/check/superfamily/vertical_metrics", | |||
| ], | |||
| "UFO Sources": [ | |||
| # FIXME (orphan check): "com.daltonmaag/check/consistent_curve_type", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This check is fine to include by default in my opinion. I would not expect any font project to want to have mixed curve types
It's just com.daltonmaag/check/no_open_corners that should be orphaned
|
This change dropped whole profiles, breaking any user scripts that uses them and it was released in a minor release. |
|
Fontbakery is mature enough by now that it would be good to release a v1.0.0 and start adhering to semantic versioning, it'd make maintaining projects that use Fontbakery so much easier 🙏 |
Almost a month ago (Aug 14, 2024) and this is the first comment regarding this. |
I agree. But I'd wait a bit longer. I have just merged a very large PR that significantly changes check-IDs and profile definitions, and I suspect that's what caused @khaledhosny to post the comment above. We'll probably change more stuff in the next few weeks. I am planning a release candidate of v0.13.0 (But it could very well be FB v1.0.0-rc1) so that people can more easily test it and adapt any scripts that may break as a result of the updated check-IDs. I'm also considering the idea of deleting profiles such as fontval and iso15008 (that are not vendor-specific) and leaving their checks "orphan", simply living in the general pool of checks to be picked by anyone who's interested in them. After these changes, I would be fine with releasing v0.13.0 (or even v1.0.0), but I feel that we need some time to mature the new naming scheme and also the new process that I'm putting in place to maintain "pending_review" lists on all profiles and a stricter "venn-diagram" of the checks in our codebase. (meaning that profiles now include full profiles and explicitly exclude what they don't like, instead of liberally cherry-picking what they want) |
I did not say this as criticism, @khaledhosny. I think you're right. That release from 3 weeks ago should indeed have bumped up a major version number. Sorry for my mistake. |
|
Having said that, there's an issue called "Request for feedback: Proposal of reorganization of profiles" waiting for comments like these since July 17, 2024 at #4801 |
These profiles were deprecated and their checks assigned to other existing profiles such as Universal and Google Fonts ones.
(Issue #4801)