Duplicate cask for M+ fonts

[waldyrious]

It looks like font-mplus.rb and font-rounded-mplus.rb (introduced in #2178) are duplicates of font-m-plus.rb and font-rounded-m-plus.rb (introduced in #146 and #262, respectively).

Should the former be deleted?

[vitorgalvao]

Should the former be deleted?

Delete the latter. The former is auto-generated from a script, so it’s more consistent for the future. There may be others that ended up being duplicated like this.

[waldyrious]

The manual entry seems to contain a bunch more styles (1c, 1m, 1mn, 1p, 2c, 2m, 2p) than the automatic one (1p only). These correspond to fonts with design differences such as proportional vs. monospaced, etc., so in effect the manual cask does provide a wider variety of fonts than the automatic one. Do we still want to delete it regardless?

[vitorgalvao]

The automatic entry will always be recreated when the script is run, so deleting that one is pointless.

To put it bluntly, this repo is a huge time and maintenance drain and isn’t worth the effort, so we need to be efficient. If the script can include those extra versions (are they even in the Google Fonts repo?), so much the better, but that’s the one that needs to stay.

[waldyrious]

I'm afraid Google Fonts only includes the 1p version (see here and here).

I'm not sure removing content that isn't otherwise included is a net positive, compared to having a partial duplicate as is currently the case. I'd like to hear the thoughts of @rolandwalker (#146), @emauricio (#1931), @kaorimatz (#433, #551, #915, #1380), and @izumin5210 (#261, #262) and @brian-c (#176), about whether keeping only the 1p variant would be an acceptable outcome. Otherwise we might as well leave things as they are.

On a separate note, maybe @afeld can also comment on what the automated import would do if the cask name already exists (currently they only differ by a hyphen, font-mplus vs font-m-plus). Would the content be rewritten? Would there be an error? It would be nice if the Google Fonts version were skipped, since it's a subset of the other one.

[vitorgalvao]

Otherwise we might as well leave things as they are.

Definitely not. We do not want duplicates. This repo is a big enough mess as it is. Everything we can automate is a net win. We’ll not do things that increase the burden of managing this repo.

You’re ignoring the obvious solution that fixes everything for everyone, which is to submit the full font to the Google Fonts repo. HBC shouldn’t be used as a workaround for things missing upstream.

[waldyrious]

You’re ignoring the obvious solution that fixes everything for everyone, which is to submit the full font to the Google Fonts repo. HBC shouldn’t be used as a workaround for things missing upstream.

I wasn't aware that they accepted community contributions, actually — I thought the fonts there were all manually added and curated by a team at Google, or something. I'll look into adding the additional fonts to their M+ collection, then. I'll post back when I have news. Thanks for the heads-up! 👍

[afeld]

Since those font folders don't contain a metadata file, the import script derives the font name based on the filename:

homebrew-cask-fonts/developer/bin/import_google_fonts

Lines 172 to 173 in 95389b1

	# grab the first font, arbitrarily
	meta.name = derive_name(font_files[0])

There's no hyphen there, hence no hyphen in the cask. If a cask of the same name already exists and it points somewhere besides Google Fonts, the script will skip it:

homebrew-cask-fonts/developer/bin/import_google_fonts

Lines 112 to 119 in 95389b1

	def should_skip(cask_path):
	if os.path.exists(cask_path):
	# Cask already exists
	if is_other_foundry(cask_path):
	print("Other foundry:", cask_path)
	# don't overwrite it, per
	# https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-cask-fonts/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#google-web-font-directory
	return True

Therefore, the simplest solution is to rename the more complete casks to match what's derived from Google: #2250 Does that clarify, and sound reasonable?

[afeld]

Re: adding other MPlus styles to Google Fonts: google/fonts#62 (comment)

[waldyrious]

Thanks for the information and for fixing this @afeld! I've offered to help in the issue you linked to; hopefully we may soon revert this cask to the google fonts version :)