On 14 June 2010 18:16, Thomas Martitz thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
I cannot answer any of the questions because I also have no experience in running a git project.
But what I know is that we are actually less depending on a hoster. Because of git's DVCS nature, everyone has the complete repo locally and can work offline with it.
You are right it is slightly less dependent since all clones have the history, but see below.
Git hosting is something for convinience (i.e. web
interface for source browsing). We wouldn't actually *need* a hoster at all, but of course it would be nice (with hosting, cloning other people's repos is simplified extremely).
Well, you will never find my repo as I don't have a static IP address, and as I have limits on bandwidth and volume I am not going to allow anyone to access it even if I had a static address and finally ADSL upload speeds are a lot slower than downloads. That is what hosting services are for. I suspect a lot of contributors are in the same boat, so, without the host, sharing would actually be hard.
This is one of the strong points of git. Even if the hoster is not very dependable, since the actual repo is on everyone's system, the hoster could be dead for a few days or we could switch the hoster easily without losing anything.
Except a lot of time and energy that could have gone into actual coding instead of setting up another %^&*$#@@ repository :-)
Cheers Lex
Best regards.
Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel