> What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with the changes and > one with the content update.
+1 We should always do this to keep the history readable. On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Ufuk Celebi <u...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On 03 Sep 2015, at 09:56, Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Matthias, >> >> I'm totally with you on this issue. However, enforcing a strict >> version is not a trivial thing. For some people, it might be difficult >> to install a specific Jekyll version because of the dependencies on >> libraries and Ruby versions that come with it. >> >>> On my system, version 2.2.0 is installed. >> On my system, Jekyll v2.5.3 is installed :) > > Same here. ;D > >> For now, I think the best solution is to only "git-add -p" the files >> that you have really touched when you rebuild the documentation. > > I like this. What I also did in the past was to have two commits, one with > the changes and one with the content update. That way, you can easily see > what content has actually been changed. But Max’s suggestion is better imo.
