Plugins are disabled during deployment to github pages

[avityuk]

Hi.

I am using github pages for deplyoing by Jekyll powered blog. Locally plugins work, but github pages ignores them.
Does it mean that plugings support is disabled in github pages and I should generate content locally and push _site dir?

[robb]

I wonder as well

[mojombo]

We can't run user plugins on GitHub Pages due to security restrictions. You are free to generate your site locally and push the resulting HTML to a Git repo, however.

[MarkBennett]

@mojombo how do I generate my site locally and push the resulting HTML to one of my GitHub Pages repos? I just tried removing the _site directory from my gitignore and then checking _site in, but GitHub Pages is not finding the pages generated by my plugin. Is this scenario not supported by GitHub Pages?

Sorry if commenting on this closed ticket is bad form. Wanted to keep the answer close to this ticket for others in the future.

[avityuk]

@MarkBennett I created two separated repositories. First - for sources wiithout _site and second is the actually generated site (everything from _site and don't forget to add .nojekyll file).

[rlgomes]

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this but what about updating the related_posts plugin with the one mentioned here http://techtinkering.com/2011/08/17/improving-related-posts-on-jekyll/ as the current one really doesn't do a good job at finding related content and that one I tried it out and really does a really good job.

[SLaks]

@mojombo Can GitHub have a whitelist of known-safe plugins that can run on Pages?

I'd really like to be able to use LESS.

[parkr]

Unfortunately, GitHub servers can only run plugins on GH Pages which are in this master repo. If you'd like to see a plugin added, submit a PR and we can talk about it!

[narzac]

@SLaks, You may use grunt and Jekyll together, grunt-less or grunt-recess, both do the job. You may also watch for the file changes with grunt-watch

[SLaks]

@narzac: I ended up doing that in my editor with http://vswebessentials.com.

However, I'd still prefer to not have any kind of build step

[simonprickett]

I just ended up using includes with parameters for things like codepen and youtube, but then all I needed was a parameterized block of HTML.

[pathawks]

I, too, have a series of includes for things like YouTube embeds. I wonder if we should collect these together somewhere?

[parkr]

I'd love to create a "Jekyll Plugins" searchable archive. A website where you can go to get "canonical" plugins to reduce duplication of effort. I was talking about this with @gjtorikian the other day. Thoughts? It wouldn't allow you to do anything on GitHub Pages, but it'd at least allow you to just use something rather than having to rebuild everything.

[simonprickett]

That would be great, as would @pathawks idea for those of us working with GitHub pages... It wasn't obvious to me when I dived into Jekyll that things like plugins wouldn't work with GitHub pages... I get why and found a solution, but would be good to have common scenarios covered off the shelf as parameterized includes.

[gjtorikian]

Can GitHub have a whitelist of known-safe plugins that can run on Pages?

Since this issue was created, we have started to whitelist plugins: https://help.github.com/articles/using-jekyll-plugins-with-github-pages/

I think a searchable plugin archive would be great.

[zaxebo1]

@gjtorikian : https://help.github.com/articles/using-jekyll-plugins-with-github-pages/ lists the list of jekyll plugins whitelisted by github pages
I desperately request you to please please please "whitelist" the jekyll-asciidoc" plugin ( "https://github.com/asciidoctor/jekyll-asciidoc )

My reasons are:

1.A) I want to do Jekyll blogging on a tablet only, and then i have the choice of only MarkDown.

1.B) Markdown has lots of limitations and non-portability across its various extensions; hence we adopted asciidoctor, and now just for putting pages in github.com, we will need to remember markdown! It would be great if asciidoctor(Written in ruby) was provided also to end-user for unified experience. Hence please whitelist "jekyll-asciidoc" plugin for jekyll ( https://github.com/asciidoctor/jekyll-asciidoc )

1.C) if jekyll-asciidoc is whitelisted, then it will give us the github.com's experience of "just works".

Please please , whitelist jekyll-asciidoc plugin

---

there is no other cultural hiccups in enabling asciidoc as:
2.A) asciidoc is already supported on github repositories http://asciidoctor.org/news/2013/01/30/asciidoc-returns-to-github/
2.B) asciidoctor (http://www.asciidoctor.org) is the asciidoc's leading implementation at the moment , which is written in "ruby". github people many tools are written in ruby, so there is no cultural propblem in enabling this ruby based tool of asciidoctor
2.C) "jekyll-asciidoc" is in "official" plugin list of jekyll at http://jekyllrb.com/docs/plugins/

[envygeeks]

Our plugin list is by no means considered an endorsement of any plugin, please do not consider it so.

[zaxebo1]

@envygeeks
i totally agree with you.
My reasons/needs to whitelist were mentioned in 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, and not in 2.A,2.B, 2.C

The list 2.A, 2.B, 2.C are just additional points due to which there should not be any cultural hiccup. For example: My point (2.B) that "asciidoctor and jekyll-asciidoc has been implemented in ruby", this is not a reason of my need , but just a point that github prefers ruby , so this tool in ruby should not be a stalled/hiccup because a particular tool was not implemented in ruby.
But just because something is implemented in ruby (2.B) can not be a reason to whitelist. My reasons were mentioned in 1.A, 1.B, 1.C.

In The same way, (2.C) is "jekyll-asciidoc is in plugin list" - not mentioned as a reason, but it was mentioned just as a point that - "as this plugin is listed there, hence its adoption should not get a hiccup due to not even being worth mentioned"

I do not know I was still able to convey my point or not. But not all are from english speaking countries, so may be there is probably still some gap in what i wanted to convey. 😞

[zaxebo1]

@envygeeks
1.A ,2.A ,3.A are those points/reasons - due to which it should be whitelisted

2.A, 2.B, 2.C are those points - in absence of which , it would not be even be considered to worth even holding discussion that it should be whitelisted or not.
But presence of the 2.A, 2.B, 2.C in a tool are not considered reasons, only its absence is considered to be hiccup.

[JosueDanielBust]

Hey, you can try to enable the plugins from https://github.com/recurser/jekyll-plugins
For blogs sometimes is necessary the categories and in the moment github dont support categories plugins! Help please!

[envygeeks]

@JosueDanielBust Jekyll has categories built in. That said, this is not the place to ask that question. You need to ask your question at https://github.com/github/pages-gem since Github uses Jekyll and Jekyll does not dictate what Github does.

[danomanion]

Is there a setting in Github Pages that we can add to a config to tell Github pages this is the folder to load my pre-rendered static rendered pages from?

Something like:
.githubpages (that contains something like) source: _sites
.nojeykll
...

I had to use a custom plugin but would like to continue to use Github pages as a host, however I wish to keep all of the files in the same repo if possible. Multiple repos or branches feel a bit messy to me, but can accept it as the only solution if it is indeed that way.

[ghost]

@danomanion nope, there's no way

[JosueDanielBust]

@danomanion I see many repos using the gh-pages and master branches that serve only the gh-pages, I don't try this solution but I think that you can...
See this gist that If found recently...
https://gist.github.com/chrisjacob/833223

[JosueDanielBust]

@danomanion check that you can change the site folder of jekyll and is not needed that use ever the _site folder with this 2 settings.

IMG from Jekyll configuration page