Jekyll 2.0.0 is released

Congrats on the 2.0 release!<p>I highly recommend taking a look at <a href="http://middlemanapp.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;middlemanapp.com</a> if you&#x27;re considering Jekyll. I gave a talk at RailsConf (<a href="http://bradgessler.com/talks/middleman-frontend/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bradgessler.com&#x2F;talks&#x2F;middleman-frontend&#x2F;</a>) about static website generators and found that Middleman handles everything Jekyll does in a much more modular, more &quot;railsy&quot; way by using tilt, sprockets, and all that good stuff.

This is amazing news. I currently have to run 2 Jekyll installs to do what I want with custom post types (before this I had a fork to add a different type and that was getting hard to keep updated): I have one main Jekyll install for my blog, and inside of that inside &#x2F;photos I have another Jekyll for my photo blog so I can do things like this:<p><a href="http://paulstamatiou.com/photos/japan/two-weeks-in-japan/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;paulstamatiou.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;japan&#x2F;two-weeks-in-japan&#x2F;</a><p>&lt;3 open source! All hosted on S3&#x2F;CF with <a href="https://github.com/laurilehmijoki/s3_website" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;laurilehmijoki&#x2F;s3_website</a>

Congrats! Native support of Sass and CoffeeScript seem trivial, because of the various hacks and plugins out there...but <i>damn</i> it was hard, even knowing the hacks, to get a Jekyll project up and running if I hadn&#x27;t been recently re-acquainted to its quirks. It&#x27;ll also be nice to have Github Pages (I&#x27;m assuming) support the baking out of sass files...it feels so wrong to go back to plain CSS.<p>The #1 feature, collections, is also huge...Lately I&#x27;ve been using Middleman, because there are a lot of small data-apps that don&#x27;t require Sinatra&#x2F;Rails but that Jekyll, being blog focused, is not well-equipped to handle...Middleman fits that niche perfectly...almost too well, as I often get to the point where I think, &quot;Why didn&#x27;t I just make this a Sinatra app?&quot; But I&#x27;m glad to see some more flexibility with Jekyll...even in the previous version, you could get pretty far with the hardcoded blogging conventions.<p>Mainly, I&#x27;m excited to Github Pages become even more easy-to-deploy and configure, particularly for documentation. Congrats and thanks again!

Looks awesome. I wonder if Octopress is planning to support this new version? Some of the new features (e.g. support for sass) seem to overlap with Octopress.

So I&#x27;m trying to check this out, but my ruby gems mirror seems to not want to. I get this error:<p>`ERROR: Could not find a valid gem &#x27;jekyll&#x27; (&gt;= 0), here is why: Unable to download data from <a href="https://rubygems.org/" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rubygems.org&#x2F;</a> - bad response Gateway Time-out 504 (<a href="https://tokyo-m.rubygems.org/quick/Marshal.4.8/jekyll-2.0.1.gemspec.rz)`" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;tokyo-m.rubygems.org&#x2F;quick&#x2F;Marshal.4.8&#x2F;jekyll-2.0.1....</a><p>Is there any way to specify other mirrors, and is there other mirrors than the Tokyo one that would work better?

Good to see them supporting Kramdown as the default Markdown converter. When building up my personal website using Jekyll, I very quickly switched to Kramdown from the default Redcarpet—it had a lot better handling of typographic characters like smart quotes and dashes, and played much nicer with Mathjax.<p>Collections also look like they will really help with creating websites that deviate from the exact &quot;blog&quot; format that Jekyll is optimized for.<p>Good work from the team.

Nice! Anyone know if github pages support Jekyll 2.0 yet?

I use Jekyll and am having an issue with it when I use feedburner. It recommends using {{site.url}} in the markdown and templates.<p><a href="http://jekyllrb.com/docs/posts/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;jekyllrb.com&#x2F;docs&#x2F;posts&#x2F;</a><p>So, for example, I have {{ site.url}}&#x2F;radio-surfing<p>On my site it shows <a href="http://www.taigeair.com/radio-surfing/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.taigeair.com&#x2F;radio-surfing&#x2F;</a> but on feedburner it becomes <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/radio-surfing/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;feeds.feedburner.com&#x2F;radio-surfing&#x2F;</a> in the feed.<p>Example <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/taigeair" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;feeds.feedburner.com&#x2F;taigeair</a><p>Does anyone else have this issue? Any suggestions?

Is there any sort of interactive static site generator, for people who are not very computer literate to use?<p>(I write code, so it&#x27;s not for me, but I am wondering if I could say, setup a template for a friend, and have them fill in the content of the pages.)

Shout out to parkr, albertogg &amp; troyswanson for the fastest public bug-fix turn around:<p><a href="https://github.com/jekyll/jekyll/issues/2317" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;jekyll&#x2F;jekyll&#x2F;issues&#x2F;2317</a>

Looking at the changes, it&#x27;s like every small niggly pain-point I&#x27;ve had with my particular Jekyll use cases (faffing around to get sass watch going in a separate shell, using &#x27;posts&#x27; for things that are not in any sense posts) have been addressed. A version bump just for me!<p>I am a happy bunny.<p>Congratulations and thanks to the Jekyll folks.

I&#x27;m using the starter template ($ jekyll new project) and pretty URLs are enabled by default. The &quot;about&quot; page works but the &quot;welcome to Jekyll&quot; link goes to a .html appended url.<p>Anyone else finding this?

I really like Jekyll and use it for both my website and blog. It really is a great product that is easy to use. Thanks!

This looks like a solid release. Collections will make Jekyll a much better choice for a wide range of sites.

It&#x27;s great to see open source projects that are used by many people evolve.

Very cool! Thanks to the whole team for their hard work.

This is fantastic. Thank you Jekyll team!

Quite disappointed the developers have decided to stick with Liquid templates. With such a handicapped and useless template language, jekyll is a non-starter for any website more complex than something you could trivially write yourself.