GEODE-10474: Update logomark after ASF rebrand

[semioticrobotic]

GEODE-10474: Project website does not reflect updated branding

The ASF recently launched a new brand and visual identity, which incudes a new logomark. This commit replaces the former logomark on the Geode project home page with the new one in order to comply with ASF brand guidelines. It also updates the copyright year to 2025.

[semioticrobotic]

Unfortunately I'm unable to assign reviewers, so I will just lightly tap @nitin-amp, @raboof, and @JinwooHwang to have a look when they're able.

[JinwooHwang]

Looks good to me. Thank you @semioticrobotic

[JinwooHwang]

@nitin-amp and @raboof. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks.

[nitin-amp]

@nitin-amp and @raboof. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks.

LGTM!

[semioticrobotic]

Thank you both, @nitin-amp and @JinwooHwang. I've reviewed the appropriate logs, but unfortunately I am not savvy enough to diagnose the error that is causing that single test to fail.

[nitin-amp]

Thank you both, @nitin-amp and @JinwooHwang. I've reviewed the appropriate logs, but unfortunately I am not savvy enough to diagnose the error that is causing that single test to fail.

It seems to be unrelated to this change - some license file may be the culprit, which is failing rat. I can take a look later in the week.

[JinwooHwang]

Thank you so much @nitin-amp

[raboof]

• It is pretty annoying that the Gradle Rat plugin doesn't show which file violated the rule. Geode uses a pretty old version of the plugin (0.3.0). A newer version (0.8.1) is available (https://plugins.gradle.org/plugin/org.nosphere.apache.rat), perhaps that gives better feedback?

• I tried running locally, which revealed that the file with missing license information is actually website/content/img/asf_logo.svg. Apparently 'png' is not checked because it is 'binary', but 'svg' it checked because it is 'text'(like). I wonder if the newest version of the Gradle Rat plugin is also so strict ;)

[semioticrobotic]

• It is pretty annoying that the Gradle Rat plugin doesn't show which file violated the rule. Geode uses a pretty old version of the plugin (0.3.0). A newer version (0.8.1) is available (https://plugins.gradle.org/plugin/org.nosphere.apache.rat), perhaps that gives better feedback?

  • I tried running locally, which revealed that the file with missing license information is actually website/content/img/asf_logo.svg. Apparently 'png' is not checked because it is 'binary', but 'svg' it checked because it is 'text'(like). I wonder if the newest version of the Gradle Rat plugin is also so strict ;)

Yikes! Thanks so much for tracing that down, @raboof. In this case, what do you recommend to appease the plugin and remain in compliance?

[raboof]

I'd first try if updating the plugin to the newest version helps. If not (I'd say it's a 50/50 chance), I'd look into if it's easy to add the license to the SVG, and if not how to exclude it from Rat in the Gradle config.

[semioticrobotic]

I'd first try if updating the plugin to the newest version helps. If not (I'd say it's a 50/50 chance), I'd look into if it's easy to add the license to the SVG, and if not how to exclude it from Rat in the Gradle config.

This makes sense to me, @raboof. But I'm afraid testing these solutions is a bit beyond my abilities. @nitin-amp, do you think you could help me?

[semioticrobotic]

Spoke with @nitin-amp on a call today, and he has graciously agreed to take a look at this and help me along.

[nitin-amp]

Spoke with @nitin-amp on a call today, and he has graciously agreed to take a look at this and help me along.

Thanks for your patience while I updated my dev environment!

I'm able to get past this error by adding the 1 line in // graphics excludes in the rat config section of build.gradle file:

    // graphics
    'website/content/docs/guide/**/*.svg',
    'website/content/img/**/*.svg',

This would tell the rat plugin to ignore the new svg logo file in website/content/img folder, as correctly pointed by @raboof (Thanks!)

[raboof]

That seems reasonable. Did upgrading the Rat plugin version to 0.8.1 not help? Might be good to do that anyway :)

[semioticrobotic]

That seems reasonable. Did upgrading the Rat plugin version to 0.8.1 not help? Might be good to do that anyway :)

Not sure how complicated that would be. What do you think, @nitin-amp?

[nitin-amp]

That seems reasonable. Did upgrading the Rat plugin version to 0.8.1 not help? Might be good to do that anyway :)

Not sure how complicated that would be. What do you think, @nitin-amp?

I did not upgrade rat; this is an expected config edit for such non-binary images.

Don't think it would be that complicated to update the rat version. I thought it would be worth waiting for Java 17 updates, as well as decision to update the template. If the project moves to another website stack, say docusaurus (node-based), this would be short-lived.

[semioticrobotic]

All makes sense to me. Thanks, @nitin-amp!

[semioticrobotic]

@JinwooHwang or @nitin-amp: Any chance you could kick-start the checks once again to see if that change clears the error?

[JinwooHwang]

Pulled the trigger for you @semioticrobotic

[semioticrobotic]

Great! This appears to be passing now, @JinwooHwang.