+1 for having two commits (if we don't agree on a unique version) However, according to the homepage, you can choose the version you want to install easily: http://jekyllrb.com/docs/installation/
> gem install jekyll -v '2.0.0.alpha.1' Or just build it from the sources. Should not be too difficult. -Matthias On 09/03/2015 10:53 AM, Maximilian Michels wrote: >> 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.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
