On 14 June 2010 18:16, Thomas Martitz <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
