Re: [Gimp-web] [New here] I would like to offer my help!

[Pat David <patdavid gmail com>]

Hello Shlomi and Marco!

> 1. How is Hugo superior to Pelican wrt the gimp.org site?

There are a few ways (this is based roughly on a fun dive through various
static site generators over the last 6-7 years):

1. It's a self-contained binary for the generator. No other requirements or
dependencies.
2. It's under very active development by the community and pushes updates
and security fixes almost every month (or a couple of times a month).
3. It's FAST to build a site. Right now if you change something in gimp.org
with Pelican it takes around 3-4 minutes to build the site. Hugo has been
building in a few seconds (for some of the other sites I've done that are
not too far off in similar size).
4. The source/output file organization is a better mental model of how a
site would normally be built (pages for directories, lists, etc etc - I had
to hack at Pelican to get the generator to build output similar to what was
sitting on disk.).
5. Easy i18n support out of the box (this might require some modifications
to interface with po files to support marco, I'll look into it).
6. Did I mention it's fast?
7. We (pixls.us folks) have migrated all of the sites we're managing over
to Hugo already (just finished up the darktable.org migration) so it makes
it easier for me to ask other users to help out as they're already familar
with the tooling (asking them to look at pelican usually results in silence
in IRC... :D :D :D ).

I have not gotten a consensus per se, other than to see if current people
hacking at it would be ok with it (nmat, maybe Jehan but I haven't bothered
him with this yet).

Ultimately my hope would be that we can lower the barrier to entry for
creating content/posts on the site and possibly engage the broader
community more (one can hope...).

Hopefully that makes sense?

On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 8:45 AM Marco Ciampa via gimp-web-list <
gimp-web-list gnome org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 03:05:21PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi Pat!
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:43:19 -0500
> > Pat David via gimp-web-list <gimp-web-list gnome org> wrote:
> >
> > > Howdy!
> > >
> > > We have a few different web properties that are handled a little
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > Primarily we have https://www.gimp.org which is the main website
> people
> > > usually find.
> > > This site is currently a static website built using the Pelican
> generator
> > > (Python 3 right now).
> > > The repo for the website is here:
> > > https://gitlab.gnome.org/Infrastructure/gimp-web
> > >
> > > I would like to migrate this to use Hugo (https://gohugo.io) instead.
> >
> > A few questions:
> >
> > 1. How is Hugo superior to Pelican wrt the gimp.org site?
>
> Good point. I thought that hugo was better for the asciidoc support but
> since also Pelican can do asciidoc (see:
>
> https://duncanlock.net/blog/2021/01/12/using-asciidoc-and-asciidoctor-for-blogging/
> )
> I really have no preference. I am really rooting for asciidoc for the
> website...
>
> --
>
> Saluton,
> Marco Ciampa
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-web-list mailing list
> gimp-web-list gnome org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-web-list


-- 
https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D  18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC