Hi,
There's a lot of reasons to try to keep this in our own control - especially
when it's possible because you have an infrastructure in place. Quality of
services is one, and keeping control over your own future and projects another.
10 years ago people also asked me why not to host it on
@Ton, I think you misunderstood, GitLab is open-source (MIT) and can
run self hosted.
(I've never used it but it looks like its an alternative to
phabricator, gitorious... etc).
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org wrote:
Hi,
There's a lot of reasons to try to keep
Try GitLab!
http://gitlab.org/
2013/10/16 Alex Fraser a...@phatcore.com
On 16 October 2013 10:15, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC it cut down the final repo size ~200mb (after aggressive GC on
both tests), some branches contain full checkouts of other projects
too - eg,
Hi all,
I had a meeting here with Sergey and Brecht and they proposed to allocate 2-3
weeks for them to do the svn-git migration and install a new tracker and review
system on our projects site.
Such a migration of course would keep all code and tracker history. Projects
site functionality
Will the branches be moved to git too?
Luke
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:24 PM, Ton Roosendaal t...@blender.org wrote:
Hi all,
I had a meeting here with Sergey and Brecht and they proposed to allocate
2-3 weeks for them to do the svn-git migration and install a new tracker
and review system
Cheers! Sounds like you're looking at private GIT hosting? Any reason to
not simply use something like Github or Bitbucket? They include the full
tracker and make user management very easy.
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Luke Frisken wrote:
Will the branches be moved to git too?
Luke
On
Github is also great to grow a bigger community :)
On 10/15/13, Jonathan Williamson jonat...@cgcookie.com wrote:
Cheers! Sounds like you're looking at private GIT hosting? Any reason to
not simply use something like Github or Bitbucket? They include the full
tracker and make user management
No, we don't look into hosting ;) We're setting up own git server in
blender.org data center facilities and we will manage it. And for
tracking/codereview we'll be using phabricator, which is much better
comparing to hat other hosters could provide.
More detailed information about what and when
Yes, but you have to accept and live with the CGU… Some are not that
open, and they may change at any time! In a word, that would be
dropping our freedom level.
Those services are nice for individual/small orgs that cannot afford own
servers, but if you can, always better to do it yourself. ;)
Hi,
I'm not sure what you mean by private git hosting, but we intend to
host the git repository ourselves, same as we do for svn now. We
generally want to host our own code and trackers, and not depend on
other companies for this.
On the practical side, Github has the advantage that it is easier
Very cool, Phabricator seems nice. I had never heard of it before.
Jonathan Williamson
http://cgcookie.com
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Brecht Van Lommel
brechtvanlom...@pandora.be wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure what you mean by private git hosting, but we intend to
host the git repository
It's also easy to use your own clone on github/gitorious/etc. for
independent coders who want their own code (or parts of it) separate from
blender.org. Having an official git master of Blender will make it a lot
easier to share commits between such independent branches, since you get
the same
I use GiT for some personal stuff (with TortoiseGiT on Windows as GUI)
and I love it so far. (For single dev-projects GiT doen't need a server
to run the Repository).
Will there be a 'bcon0' where the migration part happens? :)
On 2013-10-15 12:24, Ton Roosendaal wrote:
Hi all,
I had a
At the moment we're looking to only convert branches that have been
merged into trunk (so trunk has valid history).
Other branches wont be lost and the subversion repository wont be
deleted, but there are so many branches which were never merged it
adds a lot of overhead to making a full checkout
On 16 October 2013 06:26, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment we're looking to only convert branches that have been
merged into trunk (so trunk has valid history).
Other branches wont be lost and the subversion repository wont be
deleted, but there are so many branches
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Alex Fraser a...@phatcore.com wrote:
On 16 October 2013 06:26, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com wrote:
At the moment we're looking to only convert branches that have been
merged into trunk (so trunk has valid history).
Other branches wont be lost and the
On 16 October 2013 10:15, Campbell Barton ideasma...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC it cut down the final repo size ~200mb (after aggressive GC on
both tests), some branches contain full checkouts of other projects
too - eg,
assimp, swig are in branches + docs example files in some cases too.
Ok,
17 matches
Mail list logo
