Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 6:44 AM René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 19.12.23 um 09:41 schrieb Josh Soref via GitGitGadget: > > > From: Josh Soref <jsoref@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Some people would expect a cross to be upright, and potentially have > > > unequal lengths... > > There are lots of types of crosses. And while looking them up on > > Wikipedia I learned today that an x-cross is called "saltire" in > > English. I only knew it as St. Andrew's cross before. > > > > > GitHub uses a white x overlaying a solid red circle to indicate failure. > > > > They call it "x-circle-fill" > > (https://primer.github.io/octicons/x-circle-fill-16). > > > diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches > > > @@ -604,7 +604,7 @@ to your fork of Git on GitHub. You can monitor the test state of all your > > > branches here: `https://github.com/<Your GitHub handle>/git/actions/workflows/main.yml` > > > > > > If a branch did not pass all test cases then it is marked with a red > > > -cross. In that case you can click on the failing job and navigate to > > > ++x+. In that case you can click on the failing job and navigate to > > > > In the commit message you say the x is white, here it's red, so what is > > it? IIUC the circle is red and the x-cross inside is the same color as > > the background, i.e. white in light mode and black in dark mode. No > > idea how to express that in one word. Perhaps "red circle containing > > and x-cross"? This was an oversimplification, which I deeply regret. It uses a simple red x (❌) in some views, e.g.: https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/1620 And in other views it uses a red circle with what's actually a transparent x (white at the top if using light mode, gray fill if you select linux-leaks on the left, and dark gray fill in the log view): https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/actions/runs/7265353611/job/19794849212?pr=1620 > There's an "and" vs "an" typo there, I think. I'm tempted to just > oversimplify ("...marked with red."), but am slightly concerned about > red/green color-blind folks. I suspect they'd figure it out anyway by > comparing the checkmarks (within green) to the x's (within red), but > if we want to be more detailed, perhaps we drop the "cross" altogether > and just describe it literally: "...marked with a red circle > containing a white x."? Your text aligns with what I drafted as a response but didn't send: I think it's simplest to say an `x`, or maybe "red color and an x".
