From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60729625E3
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:13:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 54FAB182C1
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:13:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A3A40182B2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:13:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6842B4583E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:13:21 +0200 (CEST)
To: Tim Marx <t.marx@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20200928122825.21547-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20200928122825.21547-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<444711761.793.1601463274808@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <8430b937-96db-f4ee-3dfc-a7d97be97251@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:13:19 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <444711761.793.1601463274808@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.013 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [colors.black, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve_flutter_frontend 1/3] add class for
Proxmox corporate identity colors
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 11:13:23 -0000
On 9/30/20 12:54 PM, Tim Marx wrote:
[...]
>> diff --git a/lib/utils/promox_colors.dart b/lib/utils/promox_colors.dart
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..f45ef3d
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/lib/utils/promox_colors.dart
>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>> +import 'package:flutter/material.dart';
>> +
>> +class ProxmoxColors {
>> + static final Color orange = Color(0xFFE57000);
>> + static final Color black = Color(0xFF000000);
>> + static final Color supportLightOrange = Color(0xFFFF9100);
>> + static final Color supportGrey = Color(0xFFABBABA);
>> + static final Color supportBlue = Color(0xFF00617F);
>> + static final Color supportDarkGrey = Color(0xFF464D4D);
>> +}
>
> With the exception of supportBlue (why support?) none of these colors are used why should we add them if they aren't used anywhere?
>
Having all company CI (corporate identity) colors readily available helps to avoid choosing some random color if a CI color would be appropriate as well as having to look them up manually.
The colors are taken from the Brand Guidelines [0] and besides black and orange, which are the main colors, they are categorized as "supporting" colors. I wanted to have that distinction in some way.
More colors are used in the welcome screen to have changing background colors.
> Black is definitely not a color we need to define.
With the idea of having all company colors collected in one place, I would make the argument, that black should be part of it. If defined as Color(0xFF000000) or as Colors.black might be another discussion.
[0] https://www.proxmox.com/en/news/media-kit