On Thursday 02 April 2009 19:09:14 Ian Clarke wrote: > Whichever source control system we switch to, I propose that we outsource > the repository hosting. For example, if its git, we should use github. > > Reasons: > > - At least in the case of github, it will be free > - We don't have to worry about setting up and administering the repository > - Services like github have a lot of other useful add-ons like a nice web > interface to the repository > - Because of how git works, we can trivially migrate the repository > elsewhere if there is a problem > > Anyone disagree? If so, why?
IMHO hosting git (or hg) externally makes sense, for the reasons given and for other reasons. Caveats relate to binaries/workflow: Stable builds: A trusted developer should review changes (from the repository and not from the cvs list), create a tag and sign it, and then, on his own computer, build the binaries and source tarballs for that build, and upload them to our web hosting and to Freenet. Testing builds: We may or may not continue to provide testing builds. If we do they should be an unofficial service, auto-built but should automatically shut down if critical files (e.g. build.xml) are modified. The above is close to what we do now, but Done Right. In the long term we may end up with a more distributed workflow, but it depends on what people want, how it works out in practice; if I get a pseudonymous user asking me to pull his in-Freenet repo (branch), I would certainly have a look! > > Ian.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
