Part of the reason it didn't work out great for iodoom was server
maintenance. Also, you've confused the Gitorious software (which allows
you to have your own deployment) with Gitorious as a service (which is
what uZu mentioned.) Gitorious's service actually isn't too bad, but it
does lack
On 10/01/13 07:24, uZu wrote:
Hi there,
I also think that moving to git is a good step but Mercurial would have
been as good, both are decentralized and powerful SCM, which is what
really matters ^^
FWIW I would have been happy with either. I have more experience with hg
and I think it has a
I think github is a very good choice.
It works (in contrast to gitorious) and is really fun to use.
I think the usual objections against cloud-based services don't apply here:
* they can't steal source/intellectual property because it's open source
anyway.
* a vendor-lock-in or something like
Hi,
Eh, finally replying to e-mails. Was an online hermit for the last few days.
I totally agree with moving to git and have no objection with GitHub.
But the one part of the question you didn't answer is that Zakk had
some reason for moving Doom3 from GitHub in the first place. Maybe he
Hey Zachary,
Your post really doesn't explain your rational. This is particularly
interesting because you took explicit action to fork Doom3 onto your
own server. There was also the whole Mercurial debate not too long
ago.
Care to give some background on your decision?
Thanks,
eviljoel
On
There was also the whole Mercurial debate not too long ago.
The consensus was that I liked Mercurial, and everyone else liked git. :)
Moving off svn is a no-brainer in 2013...it's old and busted. Git is
fine, and my experience is that most people don't want just a git repo,
they
