Hi, My recommendation would be to use Jyckyll in a container and build the website that way.
BTW is there any reason why we need to commit the build artifacts? Why can't we just do it on CI, that would solve the problem, wouldn't it? Krzysztof On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 6:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofre <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the update, it’s the same issue I had, I wonder if it was > normal or not with new Jekyll version. > > I think it’s fair to "force" the Jekyll version and maybe check the > version in the build.sh and server.sh scripts. > > Regards > JB > > > Le 10 juil. 2020 à 01:13, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > > > > my next commit on the website will touch every single file because > > something on the update is making one minor change on every file. > > > > > > So, I added a node to always update jekyll before doing anything. > > which is fairly simple: > > > > # I believe this would do > > gem update > > > > if not, this will do > > > > gem update jekyll > > > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:51 PM Clebert Suconic > > <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I just updated my laptop, and with that came a new version of Jekyll. > >> > >> > >> When I now build the website, all the html are not changed by this > >> similar change: > >> > >> > >> -<div class="highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre > >> class="highlight"><code>BrokerService brokerService = new > >> BrokerService(); > >> > >> +<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div > >> class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>BrokerService > >> brokerService = new BrokerService(); > >> > >> > >> > >> I don't see a big deal, but later on.. if someone builds with an > >> earlier version of jekyll, that change will be reverted and we will > >> keep on a ping pong. > >> > >> So the question is.. how to enforce a minimal version of Jekyll? and > >> should we do that? > >> > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> -- > >> Clebert Suconic > > > > > > > > -- > > Clebert Suconic > >
