You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
currently with -o variable, we end up needlessly building empty or no-op variable tables when the source only contains 1 master.
Adding a new -o auto would align fontmake output options with fontc, which would aid comparing the two programmatically.
While we could change -o variable to instead build a static font when len(masters) == 1, the two variable vs static code paths are distinct enough in the fontmake pipeline to warrant a separate -o parameter. It's not the same thing to build a single master for a not-so-variable font or build it as a static font (e.g. think removing overlaps).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
currently with -o variable, we end up needlessly building empty or no-op variable tables when the source only contains 1 master.
Adding a new -o auto would align fontmake output options with fontc, which would aid comparing the two programmatically.
see googlefonts/fontc#971 (comment)
While we could change -o variable to instead build a static font when len(masters) == 1, the two variable vs static code paths are distinct enough in the fontmake pipeline to warrant a separate -o parameter. It's not the same thing to build a single master for a not-so-variable font or build it as a static font (e.g. think removing overlaps).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: