On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 06:50:46AM -0400, Michael Muller wrote: > > First off, let me say that I agree with Chris in that I'd also rather use > Mercurial (Hg) or Git for version control. But that said, Subversion's not > all that bad. The issues of repository corruption should be non-existent > under Google Code. Merging can be a pain in the ass in any system, but until > you start following a development-on-branches model, you don't need to merge > (I think I've managed to avoid merges on Subversion entirely). As Chris said, > it's not distributed: that can be a problem if you want to do development > offline. > > I'd personally like to see the Google project hosting stuff support more > source > control options, but if all you want is to easily publish the latest version > of your code base, Subversion will work nicely. > > However, for what you are describing, publishing a source tarball (or even the > script itself, if the documentation is self-contained and you don't need to > include a license file) should be perfectly adequate.
Github is pretty slick. I started using that more of late, and am moving most of my personal stuff over to git. With the wealth of info coming out here, perhaps a good talk for October might be: "Publishing Open Source Software"? Would people be interested in that? -Sean -- __________________________________________________________________ Sean Dague Mid-Hudson Valley sean at dague dot net Linux Users Group http://dague.net http://mhvlug.org There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down. __________________________________________________________________
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium Jun 4 - Sqeak! and eToys Jul 2 - KVM (Tenative) Aug 6 - Zenos Sep 3 - TBD
