On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Matthew Toseland <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > 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.
What if the junit are modified? junit are run on the sever as well Building untrusted binaries is not really impossible -- I have known some people running public build service with sandbox for long. But these kind of service have high maintenance cost ... > 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. > _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
