On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:16:17 +0200 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. 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). > > 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. That's true. However you cannot host-switch the master tree for a project each week ;) Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
pgpJSmfq31xuM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
