Re: git-scm.com status report

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 9, 2017, 02:50 UTC
Message-ID: <20170209025030.52frbjekatebjoii@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170209021208.rvy7uww3qsktbf4a@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:12:09AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> My only concern with using GitHub Pages is that I don't believe it
> currently supports TLS on custom domains.  Since we currently have TLS
> enabled, along with HTTP Strict Transport Security (as we should), such
> a configuration literally wouldn't work[0].  I think it's important that
> we continue to serve HTTPS only, anyway.

I agree we should continue to serve HTTPS. The usual solution for our use case is to stick a CDN like Cloudflare in front of GitHub Pages (and I think we'd want to do that anyway for performance).

I haven't done it, but there are various guides. Here's the one from Cloudflare:

  https://blog.cloudflare.com/secure-and-fast-github-pages-with-cloudflare/

Show 5 quoted lines

> I agree that a static site is the way to go from a maintenance
> perspective, though.  Jekyll does support Asciidoctor with a plugin,
> just not on GitHub Pages, so it would theoretically be possible to build
> the site as one big unit if we did it that way.  I've played around with
> that plugin, so I'm happy to provide guidance if we want to do that.

We already massage the data coming from Git (and from the Pro Git books) a bit before and after feeding it to asciidoctor. So I always assumed that any static site would involve some import steps for those things, and we'd commit the intermediate product into the repository.

-Peff