myg...@gmail.com writes: > On 12/01/2017 at 18:19 Adonay Felipe Nogueira writes: > >> The best approach for me is also to use something such as org-publish, >> and a simple static site server such as GNU Serveez. > > Have you used org-publish in earnest? I settled on the approach used in > https://github.com/myglc2/emacsite only after trying out org-publish > extensively. I needed source and generated content to sit together in > the working tree of complex multi-level reproducible research projects > and to be transparently revision controlled and hosted on the > organization's Github Entreprise server.
I am happy that you found a method that works for you. As a contrasting point, I don’t see why you couldn’t do that with ox-publish.el in addition to maybe Make. Based on your description, I’d copy source files using org-publish-attachment to a publish dir and compiled files to the same dir via different projects in org-publish-project-alist. I don’t know how github works re CI, but with Gitlab you’d then mark the publish folder as an artifact folder that would be published. For each commit you’d then have a zip and a website with source and compiled data / code. If you have any suggestions on how to improve ox-publish to better suit please share them. > After studying both approaches I found the emacsite approach to work > better than org-publish. Just to be clear, emacsite does not require > GitHub. You can equally well serve the site from the development tree, > or you can publish by doing git push to non bare git repos hosted on web > servers. In this way emacsite effectively automates site publishing > using make and git which I found to be more reliable than org-publish. For publishing something to the web I’d personally use CI or just cp. You could use git using :publishing-function or maybe :publishing-directory if tramp somehow supports git. Rasmus -- Tack, ni svenska vakttorn. Med plutonium tvingar vi dansken på knä!
