Just to make sure you know this exists: You could create a separate user and repo for your project. Let's say your project is called foo. So for the foo user, create a repo foo.github.com and store your stuff there. GitHub will then publish it to http://foo.github.com, and you can add that repo as a submodule in your original repo.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM, trans <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 1:34 pm, Chris Wanstrath <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:51 AM, trans<[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm sorry but the Pages feature is just god awful annoying. These are > > > my issues with it: > > > > > 1) Conceptually branches are intended for copies of one's project to > > > be worked on, not a wholly different set of files. > > > > You should let the Git project know. They're unaware and do something > > similar to gh-pages. > > > > http://github.com/git/git/tree/html > > Guess I'm just a purest then. I really don't like the idea at all. By > doing that the notion of branches and directories start to meld > together. Why not keep say pdf docs in a separate branch, how about > examples, or developer's notes, and so on? I can understand why one > might be inclined to do use a separate branch for webpages at first. I > used to keep my websites in an all together separate location at one > point. But later I realized it wasn't a big deal just to keep them > with the project. > > > > 2) It is customary to keep one's website files is a subdirectory or > > > one's project. > > > > It was also customary to branch rarely in Subversion. But now we have > Git. > > I'm not really coming from a subversion perspective. I'm coming more > from a unix perspective. For example, let say I want to zip up my > whole project, easy enough right, except wait, how do I include the > web pages? Now I got to do two zips or some other extra hoop jumping. > Or perhaps part or all of my website is generated from my source code > (which it is), now I have to teach my tools about git.... and so forth > for all related activities. > > > > 3) Per custom, my site pages are already there, in the subdirectory. > > > So why not just serve them up? Why waste storage space by storing > > > another copy of them in a separate branch? > > > > Luckily if the files are the same, no space is wasted. > > If they stay in sync... something else I have to worry about. > > > > 4) Whenever one has to do something mind-numbing like <a href="http:// > > > github.com/drnic/sake-tasks/blob/ > > > 3152ac2eca99b97fa3bd4a2951a52064d7bd961c/github/pages/ > > > migrate_website.sake">this</a> in order to get something to work as > > > one would expect, then you know there's room for improvement. > > > > I agree. Keeping your site in a gh-pages branch would eliminate the > > need for this task. > > > > > I'm not asking that you get rid of the whole gh-pages branch thing -- > > > clearly some people want it that way, but perhaps you could offer the > > > subdirectory way as an alternative? Ideally have a property to specify > > > which directory or branch, to find site pages. > > > > We'll put it on the list. > > I realize you prefer gh-pages. That's fine by me. I'd just rather do > it with a directory, so I really appreciate you guys putting this on > your todo list. > > Thanks, > Trans > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
