drdoctr
Does it make sense to use doctr to push with .nojekyll?
Right now doctr hardcodes a no .nojekyll as the design is to upload HTML pages to gh-pages. But what if one wants to use doctr to manage a page but still wants let GitHub build it? Should the .nojekyll be an option?
Hey @ocefpaf, yes, I think that makes sense to make it an option. We hard-coded it to match our initial use-cases, but we're moving beyond those now. I think I would still like to have the .nojekyll put there by default, but it should be an option to disable it. I'm open to suggestions/differences of opinion on this, though.
I think I would still like to have the .nojekyll put there by
default
:+1:
This option would save me from issue the jekyll build command manually and, better yet, from changing the Travis-CI language to ruby just to get jekyll build. I will try a PR later today.
I believe if only happens once, when doctr creates gh-pages if it doesn't exist. So you can manually remove it if you don't want it. An option seems like overkill, since it would be ignored after the first run. Maybe we just need some documentation.
I agree that an option is an overkill but removing it afterwards seems like a hack. Maybe this could be something that happens at doctr configure time.
It's not a hack. Doctr is only in charge of the directory it deploys to. You are free to modify gh-pages outside that directory however you want (or more precisely, it is in charge of the files it deploys, so even if the directory is . it doesn't care about .nojekyll unless that is one of the files it deploys).