actions-hugo VS Hugo

You can build your Hugo site in your Github Actions, e.g. like in https://github.com/peaceiris/actions-hugo, then push the static pages to your server

Documentation provides an example workflow file that uses GitHub Actions for Hugo action in the "Build Hugo With GitHub Action" section. It is ok to use it, but I will use combination of 2 examples (1, 2) from GitHub Actions for Hugo's README because it has one for projects using PostCSS.

If the data fetch from previous step succeeds, the workflow continues by building the static website with Hugo. Hugo is setup using action peaceiris/actions-hugo. When the files are ready, the result is published to GitHub pages, using another GitHub action, peaceiris/actions-gh-pages.

Luckily, there is a workflow for it. By implementing peaceiris/actions-hugo@v2 on my GitHub workflow, I was able to achieve what I wanted to do. Simple as that.

Less is more IMO. A Github Action using Hugo to deploy to GH pages.

For more information about the actions used and their options, please see Hugo and Github pages on Github.

I am looking for someone who can help me, pro bono, to: - set up this site using GitHub Pages - set up Hugo SSG (https://gohugo.io) using Jane (https://github.com/xianmin/hugo-theme-jane) as the theme - set up automatic building using GitHub actions perhaps using https://github.com/peaceiris/actions-hugo - set up Giscus (https://giscus.app) for comments (may need to fork theme, if so try to up a steam a PR also so a separate fork does not need to be maintained.) - set up banner art and profile picture (may need to fork theme, if so try to up a steam a PR also so a separate fork does not need to be maintained.) - set up SEO, RSS, favicon, Analytics, etc.

View on GitHub

I set up Hugo with peaceiris/actions-hugo. The build step afterwards runs the command

Static sites are a thing of beauty and simplicity. They're fast, secure, and easy to manage. The JAMStack movement help made it popular (after SPAs) and static site builders like Hugo and Eleventy are making it simple to build websites in this manner. I dare not mention Astro because it's the new kid making building static sites cooler than ever.

I used Hugo to convert markdown to html as with this it was very easy to do as I just did installed Hugo locally created a project added a pre-build theme and just copy-paste markdown files to content folder inside Hugo project that's it. Quickly pushed code to GitHub wrote a simple GitHub Workflow to deploy Hugo Site on GitHub Pages and That's it.

Like some other commenters here who started with Bootstrap/jQuery/etc., I feel stuck in the stone ages at times. My most recent content-based site uses Hugo (https://gohugo.io/), but I'm starting to tire of the magic and gotchas I keep running into.

Can someone that has used Astro and an older static site generator framework explain the pros/cons of Astro in that context?

I decided to go with Hugo to build my personal website. The only thing I based my choice on was the build time. I thought Hugo was in the same league as Astro when it comes to content management perks, but it isn't quite there yet. Or, I can say it has its own path since it's older than most of the other static site generators I've encountered. Moreover, it's a Go application, which is another important factor to consider when evaluating technology choices.

Hugo got a WASM based plugin system, but real scripting plugins that would be needed for SQLite are still a feature request: https://github.com/gohugoio/hugo/issues/5510

https://gohugo.io/

It's written in go but what's great about it, unlike many competitors written in Javascript or Python, is that it is just a simple binary you download and run, you do not need to get a PhD in the go build system to start a web site also it is crazy fast. It can publish a site to something like S3 or Azure Storage behind a CDN and you do not have to worry about anything other than paying the storage and bandwidth bills.

Myself I've been procrastinating on getting myself a blog and my take is Hugo is not customizable enough for me without learning a lot of Go, so I have looked at are either Python-based or oriented towards scientific publishing oriented systems such as

https://getpelican.com/

https://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/master/

https://quarto.org/

(I want to write stuff like https://ontology2.com/essays/PropertiesColorsAndThumbnails.h...)

I've given this list to people in your shoes and they usually react with information overload

https://jamstack.org/generators/

part of that is that there are 355 generators (there have to be some good ones in there somewhere) but it also uses the kind of miscommunication patterns we're used to in webtech where, for instance, you'd think they are pushing Javascript down your throat (the "J" stands for Javascript but the generators I've mentioned generate mostly HTML with just a little Javascript.)

Pick something simple and run with it, if I did that 2 years ago I'd be blogging now.

I'm satisfied with Hugo: https://gohugo.io/ It is very fast and has a lot of features. The syntax highlighting for code looks also very good.

For my personal site, I use Hugo, and I host the markdown files on GitHub. Publishing is done whenever I push to the repository using Netlify.