The test case suggests a change to 'Ubuntu Mono', but the 'Ubuntu_0.831.zip' I have here doesn't have any Ubuntu Mono (nor source, nor changelog, nor scripting, nor test cases, nor any contextual information). I can see:
The two positive takeaways are that the version debug glyph shows 0.831, and from the close-interval timestamps we can deduce that the change(s) were made in an automated fashion. The question remains *what those changes are*.
That the 0.84 files already out in the real world have flags indicating 'Hebrew' and 'Default', which these don't. Since these support less than than the higher-numbered version out there, it remains:
* What are these files for. What is their purpose, what is supposed to be tested.
* Are they even targetted for distribution. If so what are we supposed to do with them when they have a lower version number and less functionality.
The test case suggests a change to 'Ubuntu Mono', but the 'Ubuntu_0.831.zip' I have here doesn't have any Ubuntu Mono (nor source, nor changelog, nor scripting, nor test cases, nor any contextual information). I can see:
2016-01-04 11:31 Zip file (repacked today?)
2015-12-04 10:55 .ttfs
2015-12-04 10:53:12..10:53:39, internal timestamps (three-second intervals)
The two positive takeaways are that the version debug glyph shows 0.831, and from the close-interval timestamps we can deduce that the change(s) were made in an automated fashion. The question remains *what those changes are*.
We can see eg:
$ otfinfo -s {,/usr/ share/fonts/ truetype/ ubuntu- font-family/ }Ubuntu- R.ttf
That the 0.84 files already out in the real world have flags indicating 'Hebrew' and 'Default', which these don't. Since these support less than than the higher-numbered version out there, it remains:
* What are these files for. What is their purpose, what is supposed to be tested.
* Are they even targetted for distribution. If so what are we supposed to do with them when they have a lower version number and less functionality.