4 ms·

I don't understand why "decrease build time" receives such emphasis; isn't build time largely irrelevant to the type of sites that are appropriate for a static

I don't understand why "decrease build time" receives such emphasis; isn't build time largely irrelevant to the type of sites that are appropriate for a static site generator?

parkr 14y ago
"Build time" means "generation time", or "compile time". It's the amount of time it takes Jekyll to build the site from the source to the static HTML, etc. Right now, it's really slow. If you have over 100 posts, it practically warrants a coffee break. We have some developed some ideas about fixing this issue.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Would some sort of ccache style solution be appropriate?
- PStamatiou 14y ago
  This, 1000x times. I have over 1200 posts on my blog http://paulstamatiou.com http://paulstamatiou.com and I've purposefully avoided stuff like pagination, related posts (lsi) at the end of articles, tags/category pages and other features due to slow time. I'm at about 60s on my Macbook Air now which I can deal with. But when I'm writing a blog post and I constantly want to preview it in the browser (since lots of my posts have images and such I prefer seeing the real layout than purely in sublime text 2) I use a rake task I have that stashes every post but the one I'm working on so it only generates the one post. Edit: and a faster generation time means I don't have to feel bad using lots of liquid filters / includes (which can help clean things up and organize my site). Two things I'd like to see (which I've had to fork my jekyll for) and that I'll put on the github: - "multiviews" support (it's how I get all my links to have no .html ending, well that and some rack:rewrite rules) - support for different post types that are not in the main site.posts. I only have 2 types now but for a while had a regular post, a shorter "aside" style post that was not in the main feed nor homepage and had its own index and feed, and another post type for photos. These go beyond just different layouts. Though this is more of a CMS feature than a blog feature which may be a direction thing that Jekyll is not intended for. ?
  - unicornporn 14y ago
    I read parkr's above comment and was about to search for your blog (where I first read about the insane site generation times), but then I found your comment just below. :)
- tombell 14y ago
  Even if you change one post, you still need to 'rebuild' every thing. I can't see how this can be reduced.
  - parkr 14y ago
    If I update just one post, can't we just recompile that? If a layout is changed, then all non-static files would be regenerated. There's a way to be more specific.
arocks 14y ago
For me it is the single biggest feature addition. Just changing one file would require rebuilding the entire site in Jekyll. Something similar to a Makefile should be in place, which can track dependencies and rebuild only the affected files.
- tombell 14y ago
  It's a static site, you have no idea what files depend on each other. So everything has to be rebuilt.
  - lloeki 14y ago
    It's static only relative to the output. You can readily write dependencies between your source (mdown, partials, whatever) files, just like your binaries/libraries depend on .o files, which themselves depend on .c and .h. I fail to see how changing a typo in an article's content would require the whole thing to be rebuilt. Even adding a page would not require rebuilding every single page unless the new page appeared in a global navigation. Building the dependency graph automatically could even turn out to be not that hard.
  - jrajav 14y ago
    How does a Makefile know which files depend on each other?

I don't understand why "decrease build time" receives such emphasis; isn't build time largely irrelevant to the type of sites that are appropriate for a static site generator?

parkr 14y ago

"Build time" means "generation time", or "compile time". It's the amount of time it takes Jekyll to build the site from the source to the static HTML, etc. Right now, it's really slow. If you have over 100 posts, it practically warrants a coffee break. We have some developed some ideas about fixing this issue.

jlgreco 14y ago
Would some sort of ccache style solution be appropriate?
PStamatiou 14y ago
This, 1000x times. I have over 1200 posts on my blog http://paulstamatiou.com http://paulstamatiou.com and I've purposefully avoided stuff like pagination, related posts (lsi) at the end of articles, tags/category pages and other features due to slow time. I'm at about 60s on my Macbook Air now which I can deal with. But when I'm writing a blog post and I constantly want to preview it in the browser (since lots of my posts have images and such I prefer seeing the real layout than purely in sublime text 2) I use a rake task I have that stashes every post but the one I'm working on so it only generates the one post. Edit: and a faster generation time means I don't have to feel bad using lots of liquid filters / includes (which can help clean things up and organize my site). Two things I'd like to see (which I've had to fork my jekyll for) and that I'll put on the github: - "multiviews" support (it's how I get all my links to have no .html ending, well that and some rack:rewrite rules) - support for different post types that are not in the main site.posts. I only have 2 types now but for a while had a regular post, a shorter "aside" style post that was not in the main feed nor homepage and had its own index and feed, and another post type for photos. These go beyond just different layouts. Though this is more of a CMS feature than a blog feature which may be a direction thing that Jekyll is not intended for. ?
- unicornporn 14y ago
  I read parkr's above comment and was about to search for your blog (where I first read about the insane site generation times), but then I found your comment just below. :)
tombell 14y ago
Even if you change one post, you still need to 'rebuild' every thing. I can't see how this can be reduced.
- parkr 14y ago
  If I update just one post, can't we just recompile that? If a layout is changed, then all non-static files would be regenerated. There's a way to be more specific.

arocks 14y ago

For me it is the single biggest feature addition. Just changing one file would require rebuilding the entire site in Jekyll. Something similar to a Makefile should be in place, which can track dependencies and rebuild only the affected files.

tombell 14y ago
It's a static site, you have no idea what files depend on each other. So everything has to be rebuilt.
- lloeki 14y ago
  It's static only relative to the output. You can readily write dependencies between your source (mdown, partials, whatever) files, just like your binaries/libraries depend on .o files, which themselves depend on .c and .h. I fail to see how changing a typo in an article's content would require the whole thing to be rebuilt. Even adding a page would not require rebuilding every single page unless the new page appeared in a global navigation. Building the dependency graph automatically could even turn out to be not that hard.
- jrajav 14y ago
  How does a Makefile know which files depend on each other?