> I understand Pages has nothing to do with source control
Slightly disagree. What I always loved about pages is every commit is on record and auditable by the public. This makes coders accountable for their actions if they introduce malicious code to their users. Take for example:
`something.js` being served from RawGit (https://rawgit.com/). In all likelihood the asset can be trusted because we can inspect the repo where the asset resides and audit it.
The same cannot be said for private GH accounts, because it's impossible to view the source. People actually pay Github money to conceal their source code. Gasp
Slightly disagree. What I always loved about pages is every commit is on record and auditable by the public. This makes coders accountable for their actions if they introduce malicious code to their users. Take for example:
`something.js` being served from RawGit (https://rawgit.com/). In all likelihood the asset can be trusted because we can inspect the repo where the asset resides and audit it.
The same cannot be said for private GH accounts, because it's impossible to view the source. People actually pay Github money to conceal their source code. Gasp