Hello again
Any final objections against moving to github? I know that the license situation is not perfect but nevertheless I don't see any serious problems arising from that and the benefits of the github platform weigh more.
Cheers, Thomas
Thomas Bruederli wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 18:20, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) vanmeeuwen@kolabsys.com wrote:
On 2012-02-11 17:43, Cor Bosman wrote:
We would indeed be running gitorious for Thomas, so that he could administer the users / ssh keys allowed to push to such-and-such branches himself.
So does that mean only specific people can use the interface?
gitorious - if that's what Thomas wants, and he's making the decisions around here ;-) - allows git:// just as much as ssh:// (in the git@host:repo.git fashion), and granular control to committing to branches (stable vs. development vs. topic branches vs. etc.). The web interface though, which is what you are talking about, is where the features are. It uses a different push url to push out a patch for review, essentially creating a new working copy of the repository on the server. Public (anonymous) and/or private (authenticated) access being provided -should Thomas want either or both- is not the issue.
I totally see the benefits of the feature-rich github platform and providing an easy way to fork and push back commits would hopefully encourage more contributors. Currently the licensing and patent concerns of an USA-hosted github shouldn't bother us too much. That said, our current SVN server is also located in the US of A anyways. Using gitorious on a privately hosted server would be an option as well but it obviously doesn't provide as much of the social coding features as github does.
I'd definitely like to keep trac for wiki, bug tracking and roadmap planning but AFAIK it can easily connect to github.
Any other pros and cons are very welcome!
~Thomas