Thanks for the feedback. While we certainly won't be adding any
configuration files (a large point of github pages is *simple* hosting
of static sites), I can offer you two points of concession:
1. I believe that gh-pages as a branch makes a lot of sense. Marketing
websites are just as much documentation as code comments are, and
belong with the code. This is a personal opinion.
2. We do agree that it sometimes makes sense as a different repo and
we may implement support for this. I couldn't tell you when though.
Kyle
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Avery Pennarun <apenw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Mark Carter <alt.mcar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It creates a complication: there's no way for the branches to "talk"
>> to each other. It means that I can't generate html from my main branch
>> (maybe I want to run a doc generator on my python code, maybe I have
>> markdown text from which I want to generate both man pages, info and
>> html).
>
> Here's a snippet of the makefile for my project:
>
>
> # update the local 'man' and 'html' branches with pregenerated output files,
> for
> # people who don't have pandoc (and maybe to aid in google searches or
> something)
> export-docs: Documentation/all
> git update-ref refs/heads/html origin/html '' 2>/dev/null || true
> GIT_INDEX_FILE=gitindex.tmp; export GIT_INDEX_FILE; \
> rm -f $${GIT_INDEX_FILE} && \
> git add -f Documentation/*.html && \
> git update-ref refs/heads/html \
> $$(echo "Autogenerated html pages for $$(git describe)" \
> | git commit-tree $$(git write-tree
> --prefix=Documentation) \
> -p refs/heads/html)
>
>
> Okay, so it's not quite as easy as "git commit." But git lets you do
> some amazingly powerful stuff by dumping things on separate branches.
> For me, managing a totally separate repo would be much more work.
>
> And it would be *vastly* worse to have generated pages sitting in my
> project's main history. It's always bad to check generated files into
> your main version control, because these files always end up causing
> conflicts when you do a merge.
>
> Another option you have would be to simply clone two copies of your
> repo; checkout master on one, and the pages branch on the other. As
> far as you're concerned, it'll be two separate repositories, but
> they'll still be conveniently tied together on the server.
>
> Have fun,
>
> Avery
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "GitHub" group.
> To post to this group, send email to git...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> github+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/github?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"GitHub" group.
To post to this group, send email to git...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
github+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/github?hl=en.
