Add .nojekyll

[victorbnl]

This adds a .nojekyll file when pushing the built site in order for git not to build it on jekyll, thus gaining performance.

Closes #66

[shalzz]

Can you please share any documentation that describes the use of .nojekyll and any associated performance benefits?

[victorbnl]

Sure! Here is the blog post from GitHub explaining it: https://github.blog/2009-12-29-bypassing-jekyll-on-github-pages/

About the performance benefits I don't have any resources, it just feels logical that just copying files is faster than processing them with Jekyll, but if it's not enough to convince you I can test it

[shalzz]

Hi, github pages only builds a site when it sees the repo containing at least a gemfile on top of various other heuristics. I don't see any reason to worry about github trying to build with Jekyll when there's only static html files pushed to the gh-pages branch/folder.

[muzimuzhi]

Hi, github pages only builds a site when it sees the repo containing at least a gemfile on top of various other heuristics.

It doesn't seem so, see each run of the automatic workflow "pages-build-deployment" in my fork of islandoftex/arara.

In each run, the "Build" job always builds with Jekyll, see for example job 9130790528

Quoting docs for GitHub Pages,

Your GitHub Pages site will always be deployed with a GitHub Actions workflow run, even if you've configured your GitHub Pages site to be built using a different CI tool. Most external CI workflows "deploy" to GitHub Pages by committing the build output to the gh-pages branch of the repository, and typically include a .nojekyll file. When this happens, the GitHub Actions workflow will detect the state that the branch does not need a build step, and will execute only the steps necessary to deploy the site to GitHub Pages servers.

Hence I think a .nojekyll file is needed and does help.