On 15 November 2010 10:05, Mark Carter <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just created a GitHub Pages for my repo. It's a nice idea, but I > don't like the way I have to create a separate branch for my web > pages. In effect, github makes us squash two repos in one - one for > the code, and another the html. > > This is a bad idea. Conceptually, the gh-pages branch isn't "really" a > branch off an existing one, but a completely distinct branch. I argue > that that's not the way git is supposed to work. > > 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).
As a data point, the Git project itself uses this exact model to store their auto-generated HTML docs. There is a branch called 'html', which is completely separate (no shared history) from the master branch -- it's just used to store auto-generated HTML docs. The docs are generated on their central Git server in a post-update hook, which puts the resulting HTML files into a separate checkout of the html branch. You can look at 'dodoc.sh' on the 'todo' branch for the details. I agree, though, that this isn't the most simple setup. Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GitHub" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/github?hl=en.
