Evaluate transition away from Jekyll

[lenucksi]

Various people repeatedly have had trouble creating a working development environment for our Jekyll-based site, one of them being @dellagustin-sap in #91. Other than that there's the odd security notice from time to time to handle.

A few other factors exist that might want to have us consider a different static-site generator. Here's where I brought this up first: https://github.com/InnerSourceCommons/innersourcecommons.org/issues/91#issuecomment-588280567

And here's the content from that post: Thanks for approaching this @dellagustin-sap! I've found myself in the "appreciating all the Jekyll things" phase repeatedly only to be overwhelmed by a case a radical pragmatism every time - "screw non-system-wide installation of Jekyll, let's get this done!" ;). As for the desired features you mentioned initially - I'm fully on board with wanting to have them and Docker looks like a way to go here.

However I'd like to play a bit of the "advocatus diaboli" here in the hopes of saving quite a bit of effort and maintenance in the long run for a 1 or 2 afternoon conversion effort. I assume the following as a current and desired position:

• We've got a website that is not excessively complex, all based on a static site generator, Jekyll currently

• We need to be able to handle Markdown and ASCIIDoc (the learning path content)

• We want our site to be tested and deployed using CI+CD to GitHub Pages (or possibly somewhere else later) with minimal interaction and need to deal with security updates and maintenance

• We want our site to be easily editable, previewable, self refreshing, etc locally

• Currently we use Jekyll as our static site generator, Jekyll does indeed work and is popular.

  • However we face the need for manual security updates and creating a local development environment is quite the effort (see this thread)
  • Jekyll offers quite a bit of plugins, which makes it rather flexible
  • Currently we're testing and deploying using a custom Travis CI YAML and script.
  • There are pre-built GitHub Actions for this too.

• There is Hugo, another static site generator written in Go and hence offering the usual "single binary" approach.

  • It accepts Markdown and with the usual conversion extensions, just as Jekyll, ASCIIDoc too
  • It's really fast and offers instant rebuilt on file system change
  • Local setup is trivial (MacOS brew, Linux Package Managers or brew, Windows Chocolatey or manual download) and just works, as all you do is install the usual single binary.
  • CI builds can be done using Travis or readymade GitHub Actions.
  • There are conversion scripts to convert the metadata and structure from Jekyll to Hugo

I successfully run my website on Hugo as do quite a lot of other people. Would you be open to consider the idea of attempting a Hugo conversion for the website and migration to Hugo GitHub Actions instead of the Docker route? I could also help a bit with this as I already successfully run Hugo.

[rrrutledge]

It doesn't bother me if someone wanted to convert it, but I haven't experienced said difficulties with Jekyll so it doesn't bother me to stay, either.