I think my own assumption has been that votes (here and elsewhere) in favor of 'git' are also a tacit vote for 'github' but that may be an incorrect assumption on my part. Clearly there are non-github hosting options for git (SF too as you point out) but my sense is that it would be surrendering at least some of the benefit of git by adopting it as a DVCS 'engine' but not also moving to github (the demonstrable nexus of git-based 'social coding').
What do others think about this? Even though technically its possible to divide the two choices (DVCS platform and project-hosting provider), is it the case that for all practical purposes we are viewing these as one and the same thing --? Steve Bohlen [email protected] http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com http://twitter.com/sbohlen On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Richard Brown (gmail) < [email protected]> wrote: > I’m largely ambivalent about ‘which’ DVCS we use. I have only briefly > tried GIT (and didn’t love it ... but did love the speed), and I haven’t > used Mercurial, so I cannot contrast. > > I get the general impression (from previous rounds of this discussion) that > the most popular opinion that was voiced was for github. > > I believe SF can host both GIT and Mercurial ... but I take it (just to be > clear) that most people are suggesting both moving to GIT *_and_* moving > the host from SourceForge to github? > > > > *From:* Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2011 1:23 AM > *To:* nhibernate-development <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [nhibernate-development] DVCS Rerevisited > FYI, after NH 3.2 goes GA we *will* be moving the authoritative repo to a > DVCS platform. > > Steve Bohlen > [email protected] > http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com > http://twitter.com/sbohlen > > > On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Ramon Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I'm for github too > > >
