[icons] Document what and why icons are included/excluded
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- JavaScript
- Stars
- 99.1k
- Forks
- 32.5k
- Avg merge
- 2d 17h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 106
Description
HI, I want to ask what is the reason for adding icons to blacklist? On Google icons website I see that they are licences under Apache license 2.0, which basically means Open Source.
I've found this issue which says something about irrelevant icons, but what is considered irrelevant and why?
I've been using both of those icons, but now they are not available anymore. Should I add them myself if I really need them?
'VerticalDistribute', // Advanced text editor
'HorizontalDistribute', // Advanced text editor
- [ x] I have searched the issues of this repository and believe that this is not a duplicate.
Thank you,
Vladimir
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Review the linked PR #22186 and the Google Icons licensing page first; the issue provides no repository file or test entry point. Clarify the criteria for including or excluding icons, explain the licensing and relevance considerations, and document whether users should add missing icons themselves. Done means the policy and next steps are explicit.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100