I like the workflow that Jekyll promotes. Documentation updates can be submitted in the same way as code updates (as
pullrequests) and the Markdown syntax is easy to learn / use. There is low perceived friction to updating the
documentation,which is good to drive contributions.
I have only used it in the context of GitHub (i.e. I cannot vouch that maintaining it outside of the context is as easy
asthey claim, nor do I have any reason to believe it isn't) but I think it deserves a close look.
+1 on too many choices, unless there are volunteers to go through all of them we can probably just look at the five
"mostpopular" or something.
On Jul 10, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com> wrote:
> Dana,
>
> I think you gave us too many choices!
>
> If I had to choose it would be jekyll only because of the inertia from the github folks
>
>
> Dave Cramer
>
> dave.cramer(at)credativ(dot)ca
> http://www.credativ.ca
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Nelson <stephen@eccostudio.com> wrote:
> Echoing what Heikki said, I personally haven't used any of the site generators mentioned. However the solution does
needto be a simple git checkout and with minimal dependencies you can make updates. I've tried to get the current site
docgenerated a few times without much luck in generating some of the pages. So definitely simplicity rules.
>
> I believe github uses Jekyll and it supports the markdown syntax that is easy to understand and used on github. But I
haven'tused it so can't vouch for its ease of use or popularity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>