On 7/17/2011 5:59 AM, Klaim - Joël Lamotte wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:22, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot@gmail.com> wrote:
Which I guess is what Dave is suggesting above. I don't know enough about Github to see if it can deliver on the above features, so I will leave that for others to comment on. But if I had to choose I would likely use the Google project hosting.
For your information :
Fundamentally, they offer the same services. There are just two important differences between those : 1. GitHub is oriented on "collaboration" (whatever it means) and provide additional tools to this goal compared to GCodeHosting.
It would be good to know what those additional tools/features are. And more apt, if they are things that authors would want or need.
2. GCH provide Subversion and Mercurial repositories while GitHub provides Git only repositories.
Correction; GCH provides Subversion, Mercurial, and Git <http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/ChoosingAVersionControlSystem>.
Git& Mercurial can work together easily it seems and there are tools and extensions to those to help working with svn repositories too.
My suggestions: a) choose a main "central" repository hosting service, say github b) maybe maintain copies of those repositories on a more private server (maybe osuosl?) c) when someone provides source code to be put in sandbox or vault, they should provide a repository address : that external repository could be anywhere, the vault/sandbox would only be a regularly updated clone of that.
That way you get a "central" public vault/sandbox, an easy to setup and secure backup (independent from the hosting service) and developers can use whatever repository hosting they want too.
Although that gives a similar result to the traditional vault, it has one significant drawback. It introduces a management layer for Boost for each proposed library/file. This is worse than both the old vault (self-registration) and sandbox (one-time moderator registration).
The backup would be easy to setup assuming you're using decentralized control source like on GitHub (no choice there), making changes transactions between repositories easier.
Not sure what you mean here. But backups are "easy" with most RCS. Since there's no need to worry about the revision part (as it's a straight copy not a merge).
By the way, may I ask why does the github vault repositories contain zips instead of content of the zip files?
Because it's a direct copy of what the old vault contained. Which was just people uploading ZIPs for others to get. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail