Subject: Re: [boost] [infrastructure] The vault vs. project hosting vs. Boost hosting? (was: sandbox or boost vault)
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-17 06:59:47
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:22, Rene Rivera <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Which I guess is what Dave is suggesting above. I don't know enough about
> Github to see if it can deliver on the above features, so I will leave that
> for others to comment on. But if I had to choose I would likely use the
> Google project hosting.
For your information :
Fundamentally, they offer the same services. There are just two important
differences between those :
1. GitHub is oriented on "collaboration" (whatever it means) and provide
additional tools to this goal compared to GCodeHosting.
2. GCH provide Subversion and Mercurial repositories while GitHub provides
Git only repositories.
Git & Mercurial can work together easily it seems and there are tools and
extensions to those to help working with svn repositories too.
a) choose a main "central" repository hosting service, say github
b) maybe maintain copies of those repositories on a more private server
c) when someone provides source code to be put in sandbox or vault, they
should provide a repository address : that external repository could be
anywhere, the vault/sandbox would only be a regularly updated clone of that.
That way you get a "central" public vault/sandbox, an easy to setup and
secure backup (independent from the hosting service) and developers can use
whatever repository hosting they want too.
The backup would be easy to setup assuming you're using decentralized
control source like on GitHub (no choice there), making changes transactions
between repositories easier.
My 2 cents.
By the way, may I ask why does the github vault repositories contain zips
instead of content of the zip files?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk