On Sunday 05 April 2009 15:55:38 Daniel Cheng wrote: > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 5:03 AM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at 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
Good point. :( > > 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 ... Well, no sandbox is perfect, and right now unit test changes are not so common... > > > 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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090406/2106e45b/attachment.pgp>
