The problem at the moment is that there is a significant issue in the Apache build structure. Infra is working to resolve that. Then we will update both the template and the instructions for using it. THEN everything will flow again.
We will be able to build and test locally, but not for a long week. In the meantime Royale can add content to the royale-pelican-website repo and see what happens in the staging site. Obviously less than ideal, but leading toward a solution that is tightly integrated with the build process Royale could, for the duration of this awkward period, let you move ahead with your work to test out whether Pelican can provide a site we like the look of, and the rest of us can restrain ourselves from making contributions. So the staging site would effectively be your local test site. Or, as you say, Royale can evaluate other static site creators. Which will also encounter the current issue in the build system. a On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:19 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> wrote: > Continuing a discussion from the private@ thread that doesn't need to be > private. > > I find that working on web pages requires tons of minor tweaks and > experimentation with styles and things, which will take way more time if I > need to commit and push it all. Additionally, I'd rather not flood the > commits mailing list with all of this unnecessary noise when I should be > able to do my debugging locally. Not to mention that I'll need to figure > out things like Pelican's way of collecting blog posts to display in > chronological order (including generating RSS feeds automatically) — which > I think is safe to predict won't work on my first few tries. > > To be clear, if I can't test locally, I'm a strong -1 on using Pelican. If > Pelican isn't easy to set up and use locally, we can find a better > static site generator. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >
