Hi,
I just observed when building the Flink web page locally, that a lot of files got touched. Even files, that are not related to the actual change. After asking, it turned out that the problem is different versions of Jekyll that are used. I personally think that this is quite annoying and would suggest to agree on a unique version to be used. What do you think about it? On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. Maybe we should use the version that the majority of people are using right now (to keep the overhead of changing the version to a minimum). Or is anyone aware of a technical reason for using (or avoiding) a specific version? -Matthias |
Hi Matthias,
I'm totally with you on this issue. However, enforcing a strict version is not a trivial thing. For some people, it might be difficult to install a specific Jekyll version because of the dependencies on libraries and Ruby versions that come with it. > On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. On my system, Jekyll v2.5.3 is installed :) For now, I think the best solution is to only "git-add -p" the files that you have really touched when you rebuild the documentation. Cheers, Max On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Matthias J. Sax <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > I just observed when building the Flink web page locally, that a lot of > files got touched. Even files, that are not related to the actual > change. After asking, it turned out that the problem is different > versions of Jekyll that are used. > > I personally think that this is quite annoying and would suggest to > agree on a unique version to be used. What do you think about it? > > On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. Maybe we should use the > version that the majority of people are using right now (to keep the > overhead of changing the version to a minimum). Or is anyone aware of a > technical reason for using (or avoiding) a specific version? > > > -Matthias > |
> On 03 Sep 2015, at 09:56, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hi Matthias, > > I'm totally with you on this issue. However, enforcing a strict > version is not a trivial thing. For some people, it might be difficult > to install a specific Jekyll version because of the dependencies on > libraries and Ruby versions that come with it. > >> On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. > On my system, Jekyll v2.5.3 is installed :) Same here. ;D > For now, I think the best solution is to only "git-add -p" the files > that you have really touched when you rebuild the documentation. I like this. What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and one with the content update. That way, you can easily see what content has actually been changed. But Max’s suggestion is better imo. |
> What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and one with the content update.
+1 We should always do this to keep the history readable. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 03 Sep 2015, at 09:56, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> I'm totally with you on this issue. However, enforcing a strict >> version is not a trivial thing. For some people, it might be difficult >> to install a specific Jekyll version because of the dependencies on >> libraries and Ruby versions that come with it. >> >>> On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. >> On my system, Jekyll v2.5.3 is installed :) > > Same here. ;D > >> For now, I think the best solution is to only "git-add -p" the files >> that you have really touched when you rebuild the documentation. > > I like this. What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and one with the content update. That way, you can easily see what content has actually been changed. But Max’s suggestion is better imo. |
+1 for having two commits (if we don't agree on a unique version)
However, according to the homepage, you can choose the version you want to install easily: http://jekyllrb.com/docs/installation/ > gem install jekyll -v '2.0.0.alpha.1' Or just build it from the sources. Should not be too difficult. -Matthias On 09/03/2015 10:53 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: >> What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and one with the content update. > > +1 We should always do this to keep the history readable. > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >>> On 03 Sep 2015, at 09:56, Maximilian Michels <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Matthias, >>> >>> I'm totally with you on this issue. However, enforcing a strict >>> version is not a trivial thing. For some people, it might be difficult >>> to install a specific Jekyll version because of the dependencies on >>> libraries and Ruby versions that come with it. >>> >>>> On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. >>> On my system, Jekyll v2.5.3 is installed :) >> >> Same here. ;D >> >>> For now, I think the best solution is to only "git-add -p" the files >>> that you have really touched when you rebuild the documentation. >> >> I like this. What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and one with the content update. That way, you can easily see what content has actually been changed. But Max’s suggestion is better imo. |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |