Use branches instead of the backup directory

[amshin98]

I realize branches were a built-in system staring at me in the face that would have allowed us to back up the website without having to make a new directory and adding it as a deployment exclusion in DeployHQ. We should change over to storing the old website on a branch instead.

• Delete the backup/ directory
• Create and checkout branch old-website
• Replace everything with things from backup/ EXCEPT for tutors/
  • Double check that there's nothing else that we shouldn't change
• Delete backup/ from master and old-website
• Remove the exclusion of backup/ from deployments on DeployHQ

I don't think it's necessary to make a separate branch, say, new-website for our current changes, as we don't have a pressing need to do weekly releases or something like that. When we transition back to in-person tutoring and want to save the current state of the website in case something like this happens again, we can similarly back it up on another branch.

[mcclane]

Why not use tags/releases as a way of marking backups? I think branches should be kept for adding new info/features, which then get merged back into master when complete. Then when we need to go back to the usual in person tutoring we just update the homepage with info saved in older commits.

[amshin98]

I've never used tags or releases before, would they allow us to switch back and forth between versions at will? One of the main things that drew me to branches was the ability for us to specify which branch to deploy on deployhq, but I agree with what you're saying about what we should be using branches for.