I'm using Octopress as my blog engine. It's perfect. But if there are many posts, for example 400+ posts, the speed of generation is soooo slow.
So, is there any way to speed up Jekyll/Octopress generation?
Thanks.
Obviously if you are just working on one post, there is no need to wait for the entire site to generate. What you are looking for is the rake isolate[partial_post_name] task.
Using rake isolate, you can “isolate” only that post you are working on and move all the others to the source/_stash folder. The partial_post_name parameter is just some words in the file name for the post. For example, if I want to isolate the post from the earlier example, I would use
rake isolate[plain-english]
This will move all the other posts to source/_stash and only keep the 2011-09-29-just-type-the-title-of-the-post-here-in-plain-english.markdown post in source/_posts. You can also do this while you are running rake preview. It will just detect a massive change and only regenerate that one post from then on.
by #Pavan Podila
More Info: Tips for Speeding Up Octopress Site Generation
2013.01.08 update:
Hexo--A fast, simple & powerful blog framework, powered by Node.js.
Features:Incredibly fast - generate static files in a glance
2013.6.20 update:
gor -- A static websites and blog generator engine written in Go
gor has following awesome benefits: 1. Speed -- Less than 1 second when compiling all my near 200 blogs on wendal.net 2. Simple -- Only one single executable file generated after compiling, no other dependence
Install Ruby GSL
gem install gsl
You should notice a speed increase.
hexo powered by Node.js. I am using it, much faster than Octopress. And it provides a simple way to migrate your articles to hexo very easily.
You can generate only one post while you are writing it using
rake isolate[your-post]
and then
rake integrate
to go back to normal.
To fully answer your question, you can't generate only one post. You can see Octopress' Issue #395 on that subject, which explains that this is due to a limitation on Jekyll's side.
Reached this post with the same problem, but then did not quite like the idea of rake isolate. Also the inbuilt task does not integrate with the _drafts workflow.
So what I ended up using is to create a custom config.yml with the _posts folder excluded (using exclude) and have only the drafts folder built. You can pass in a different config file as command line parameter to jekyll. I just used this when actively writing new posts and while publish use the same old approach (which still does take some time). This approach builds only the draft post and I am good with that.
jekyll build --watch --drafts --config _previewconfig.yml
For those interested in the complete worklow take a look here
If your blog has a lot of images (and other static assets that do not change between builds), it is worthwhile to exclude them from Jekyll's build process, and instead manually update them as needed.
For whatever reason, Jekyll build is not intelligent when it comes to handling such assets. It will delete everything in the public folder, and re-copy the contents in source every time you build. This is wasteful if the assets haven't changed. This can be avoided by using a tool such as Robocopy (Windows) or Rsync (Linux) that is able to update only what has changed.
To tell Jekyll to ignore a folder, add the following to _config.yml:
exclude: # exclude from build
- folderPath
keep-files: # do not delete/empty copy in `public`
- folderPath
Then elsewhere, use whatever tool you want to update the folder.
For more things you can try, see this post.
Related
I am currently working on a Jekyll blog on Linux. However I'd like to add contributors to this blog who are using Windows and who haven't any skills in programming or using tools like Git etc.
I was wondering what could be the best process/pratice to enable them to post on the blog?
Installing them the entire environment and writing a script maybe?
Could it cause any issues due to the OS?
Any suggestions or advices are welcome :)
I don't think installing git, and pushing content to your repo is hard task for any non-tech guy.
1: Little tough way
Use team viewer and help your partner to setup git.
Allowed access to your repository.
Teach them, about frontmatter, and some jekyll commands.
2: Simple and smooth way.
Just get doc files dirctly from partner, which contain only content, nothing else, and convert yourself into markdown with manual frontmatter.
3: Create your own dashboard.
You can create your own dashoard like WordPress, where your partner can add categories, tags, title, meta description etc things, that can convert into frontmatter automatically. For that, you need to build yourself. (I find out that kind of generator here, but look's like he deleted, you can find it, by visiting him, old deleted commits).
I had the same problem so I ended up using Wordpress as the interface to it and creating a plugin to marry the systems up.
I figured I'd share it so feel free to have a look:
https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp2jekyll/
I am evaluating Hugo for generating my static site that will potentially generate about 20 posts a day. So in about a year, there will be 7000+ posts written in markdown, that will need to be build and deployed to my production server.
I initially started with Jekyll, but the builds even for small number of pages is terribly slow, and I can't, for the life of me, understand how a seemingly basic requirement like incremental builds - building and generating only content that has changed -- is still not supported in Jekyll... #SMH.
So I would like to know if Hugo has incremental builds?
I didn't see anything in the documentation over at gohugo.io,or in the hugo help commandline help.
But Hugo seems to have everything else I am looking for, and the builds on a small batch of posts is blazing fast, so I would really like to give it a chance.
Plus the language that it's written in, GO, was co-authored by 1 of my all-time favorite hackers -- Ken Thompson.
Hugo currently has no incremental builds. The upcoming Hugo 0.16 will be smarter about building in server watch mode (i.e. it will detect what you change and only read that, testing indicates a ~15% improvement in the common case), but the builds will still be everything.
It will eventually happen, but it is a hard problem to solve in a simple way... But Hugo is very, very fast at what it does.
Is there a tool for creating Ruby gem which automatically generate not only project file structure, but also tests file structure (with default ruby assert tests or rspec)?
You may want to take a look at hoe, which allows you to write your own project templates in erb, amongst other goodies. See http://docs.seattlerb.org/hoe/
Personally I have found, despite looking for something like this initially, that bundle gem <gemname> and a quick reference to an earlier project is not all that much work in practice, considering the number of gems I have written (about 7, though only one is published). Boris Stitnicky's comment rings true for me as well - understanding why a particular structure works, and building it from scratch at least a couple of times is worth the time invested in gaining Ruby knowledge.
However, if my day job project involved creating many in-house gems, I'd probably be using hoe, or a similar tool to get them started consistently.
Currently I am writing a Ruby on Rails application, and I am using Gems, however sometimes I feel that Gems are not as flexible as I want them to be. To make them more flexible. Should I
Fork them on github, and customize it, but this still present the challenging of managing everything.
or
Strip and merge the code of the gem to the main application? This will allow further customization of the gem. This would be for situations where a Gem require another Gem's functionality.
or is there a better way of doing this?
Thanks
B
Choice A is the better answer for a number of reasons.
You get to merge in security updates, enhancements, and bug fixes easily.
Your changes may get merged into the core--in fact, consider if you could implement them in such a way as they live alongside the core functionality as options. If this happens, you have the ultimate win--nothing to maintain, and you can retire your fork.
Others can benefit from your changes.
Your project's footprint is kept smaller and focused by keeping the gem code isolated.
You'll have something to add to your Github "resume."
If its some kind if not so popular gem or "bicycle" from some previous studio or developer who started project(in my case).
I prefer deprecate this gem's and move code into project,
for example they have c***la-deploy - it's just wrapper to Capistrano 2 with own methods))) - I just delete it and rewrite on last Capistrano 3
Than that have own "CMS" c***la-cms where they wrap standard form_for or simple_form with name "twitter_form_for" ? - fist of all I start try to find gem who use this name, and than find in dependency gem's ...
Its take a lot of time for new developer involve in project - better move to standard rails methods/heplers
But anyway i understand for a what this studio do that - its just vendor lock and for client more hard to move out from them to another developers.
For example for startup its bad to use a lot of dependencies and if it's just simple website - dose not matter.
Let me elaborate on the question...
I have a custom CMS (built on codeigniter FTW) that includes many different types of modules.
Every time we have a new project come through the door, it is a variation and amalgamation of a few of the existing modules.
Sometimes a project comes through with requirements that are not satisfied by the existing modules, in that case I will write a new module...
All the modules are separated out in folders and the code is VC-ed using GIT. Every module has it's own Model, View, Controller, SQL and Javascript files. All the dependencies are also separated and folder-ed nicely...
The next step for me is to create some sort of installer script that will take me through the "scaffolding" process step by step, allowing me to choose from the existing modules. A glorified "makefile" if you may...
Rather than rolling my own, does anyone know of any such thing out in the wild.
I know of Apache ANT (java), what I need is something in pure PHP with very low or no dependencies...
I would like something as simple as running a git pull and then php make.php
Thanks.
The "Ant-like" alternative I am aware of in PHP land is phing it is written in PHP and it will allow you to perform several tasks for packaging, deploying and testing your web applications. The documentation is a great starting point if you want to hit the ground running.
It is can also be extended to define new tasks if needed (examples and explanations are provided in the documentation)
Reading through the doco it appears to be possible to install Phing without PEAR as documented here you would have to correctly setup the environment on each machine you wish to use Phing on. I can not confirm this method though as I use PEAR for all my installs.