Repository navigation
Conversation
The contributing guide was written for someone who wants to change the site. The people most likely to need something from it are the ones the site is about, and for them the answer is an email, not a pull request. Three sections say so. What is on a card, which is a name, a role, the events computed from the pages that list the person, and nothing else unless they gave it. How to change it, which is an email to the association or the pencil icon on GitHub, with no identity document asked for. And how to have it removed, with what removal can and cannot do on a public repository: the card goes from the site and from the build, and we ask the search engines and the Internet Archive to drop their copies, but the Git history keeps it and so does anyone who already copied it. Whoever is not happy with that should tell us before we publish, and we would rather not publish a card than publish one we cannot withdraw. The text comes from a draft written for the Archive, where every person was going to have a page of their own at a URL. They do not: config.toml cascades render = "never" over content/people, so a person file builds no page. The draft also named a short_bio field that no longer exists, a content/talks section that was never created, and a privacy policy at a path the site does not serve. All of that is rewritten to the site as it is.
A file for AI coding agents, beside the contributing guide for people. It holds what an agent gets wrong that a human would not, and what this repository does differently from a stock Hugo site: the pinned binary at bin/hugo and why not to pip install hugo, the TOML key that lands inside the last table and silently does nothing, merge.ff = only, unsafe = true in the Goldmark renderer and the two content files that still carry raw HTML, images under assets rather than static, and master being the built site rather than a source branch. The draft was written on 2026-10-03 and four of its facts had gone stale, so each one was checked against the tree before this commit: - The page count was 310. A clean build gives 317: 261 from Hugo and 56 copied from static/archives. The line now says to recount rather than trust it. - It said resources/_gen is tracked in Git and that a build dirties the tree. Both it and docs/ are gitignored now, so the line says what a dirty tree there actually means: a branch from before that change. - It named the two files that need unsafe raw HTML without saying what guards them. bin/check-html-safety and bin/check-rendered do, on every pull request, and both are now in the file. - bin/serve takes no port: it runs Hugo's own default. The table of paths gains data/ and a table of the three checks, which are what a pull request has to pass.
ber2
approved these changes
Oct 8, 2026
# Conflicts: # README.md
It said 317, which was true when the file was written and stopped being true the moment #202 merged: that pull request stopped publishing the 206 person and sponsor pages, so a clean build is 109 pages now, 53 from Hugo and 56 copied from static/archives. The line already told a reader to recount rather than trust it. It now also says what happened, because a figure that went stale in a day is the best argument for recounting.
This branch has not been deployed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Two files for the people who work on this repository: one for a person, one for an agent. It comes off #205 because it edits the
CONTRIBUTING.mdthat #205 adds, but it needs nothing from the board.The contributing guide gains three sections about your own card
The guide was written for someone who wants to change the site. The people most likely to need something from it are the ones the site is about, and for them the answer is an email, not a pull request.
That last paragraph is the one worth reading twice. It is the same reasoning
LICENSING.mdgives in #205 for why the photographs carry no licence.AGENTS.md
A file for AI coding agents, beside the contributing guide for people. What an agent gets wrong that a human would not, and what this repository does differently from a stock Hugo site: the pinned binary at
bin/hugoand why not topip install hugo, the TOML key that lands inside the last table and silently does nothing,merge.ff = only,unsafe = truein the Goldmark renderer and the two content files that still carry raw HTML, images underassets/rather thanstatic/, andmasterbeing the built site rather than a source branch.Both drafts had gone stale, and were corrected against the tree
The contributing text was written for the Archive, where every person was going to have a page of their own at a URL. They do not:
config.tomlcascadesrender = "never"overcontent/people, so a person file builds no page. It also named ashort_biofield that no longer exists, acontent/talks/section that was never created, and a privacy policy at a path the site does not serve.AGENTS.mdhad four facts that no longer held. Each was checked before committing:static/archives/. The line now says to recount rather than trust itresources/_gen/is tracked, so a build dirties the treedocs/are gitignored. A dirty tree there means a branch from before that changebin/check-html-safetyandbin/check-rendered, on every pull requestbin/serveruns on :1313The table of paths gains
data/, and a table of the three checks a pull request has to pass.