I have no preference for jekyll v. pandoc, but I do wish we would stop changing our build process so often. We make it very difficult for instructors that only contribute a few times a year when they teach workshops.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Greg Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > The most common complaint about our current lesson template is that it > requires people to commit generated HTML as well as Markdown source to the > repository's gh-pages branch. Aren't only the maintainers supposed to commit the generated HTML? Generating the html to view locally is similar whether we use jekyll or pandoc. https://github.com/swcarpentry/lesson-template/blob/c19c252bc25885eb7df3e086699a07eedbbd006f/CONTRIBUTING.md > We've blogged about this at > http://software-carpentry.org/blog/2015/06/using-jekyll-for-lessons.html - > we'd be grateful if you could tell us whether it's worth making the change. As we now make the transition to using jekyll, I'd like us to recognize that we have come full circle. We were originally using jekyll before we made the switch to pandoc. When making the decision to switch from pandoc to jekyll, shouldn't we at least consider the reasons we switched from jekyll to pandoc in the first place? What has changed since this blog post was written that has made us decide to switch back? http://software-carpentry.org/blog/2014/10/pandoc-and-gh-pages.html I understand that we want our build process to be as ideal as possible, but what if we focused our energy more on improving and/or creating lesson content? John _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
