Added build information into the template build process

[therebelrobot]

No description provided.

[Fishrock123]

Would be nice sooner than later given the website is sometimes having issues cloning right now.

[therebelrobot]

Kk. The soonest I can take a look at it is once I'm home from work tonight, around 5:30pm MST (12:30a UTC). If you want to take a look at it before that, feel free, but I'll be hopping in then.

[therebelrobot]

Ok. should be good for review.

[snostorm]

So, why did we need this anyway?

I've simplified the gulp task today to be a lot less complicated (it looks at the markdown files first as the gulp.src(), versus the less-Gulp way we're doing it now.

Just deciding if we still want to include this or use something else (like manifest files) for caching.

It isn't difficult to do so, but I'm not 100% on the history here.

[AntouanK]

@snostorm I remember I suggested that, in order to make it easier to track what version/build/commit is the one on the live site.
For example right now I can see that on https://iojs.org/en/index.html we have

<!--=========== BUILD INFORMATION ===========Build Time: 2015-03-03 02:46:30 UTCCommit Sha: f3ff1b9607b09507fadcf14efd592b5d1e98d19aCommit Msg: fixes content/es to use version variable, bumps to 1.4.3Hashsum: a82ba246c92e18afe3b4f8df29e4d4950859328d=========== END BUILD INFORMATION ===========-->

No need to go into the repo or jenkins or whatever.
I would do that only on production though.
That snippet should not exist in development files I think, it doesn't help on anything there.

[snostorm]

Thanks @AntouanK!

Our production HTML files (seen on iojs.org) currently come from our pre-compiled public directory, which is under version control.

For now I'd suggest we remove this and make it a production-only tweak to the project once we do builds on the server. It really just confuses things when working locally.

In fact, this gives us (slight) mis-information anyway, because the Commit Sha/Msg we're defining is actually from the commit prior to the one which generated the output HTML. So if the source article AND output HTML land are from the same commit, this would actually be misleading, as it would refer to the previous commit which had no impact.

Anyway, this is all regarding #257 (which I just sent up) so we can carry on the conversation there to keep this on an open issue versus closed one.

[AntouanK]

@snostorm
I agree, I think it should be a build step but when the build happens on the server.
Otherwise yes, it's confusing.

I have the same thing on my website and it proved useful many times
( http://hack.ernews.info/ , check the menu by clicking at the top right corner icon, you'll see there the git tag 0.4.9, how many commits after the tagging we are 10 and the last commit hash when that build was made ge6cbbb9 )
All these come from just making git describe --tags so it's only a few lines to get that in the gulp task.