One thing to note about git vs svn is that each git repository is a complete
repository containing the full history, so despite github acting as a central
repository, it is not the same as a central svn repository. In svn the central
repository is typically the only repository with a complete revision history,
but that is not the case with git.
�����
Brian Lee Yung Rowe
Founder, Zato Novo
Professor, M.S. Data Analytics, CUNY
On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Spencer Graves
<spencer.gra...@structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
>> In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code
>> in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These
>> are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get
>> everyone on board.
>
>
> Am I correct that we could use Git without Github?
>
>
> If yes, the planning might involve a cost-benefit comparison of what
> would be required bring up a not-for-profit alternative to Github (e.g.,
> RGit.org or FreeGit.org or ...), and whether the risks of problems with that
> would be more or less than the risks associated with "putting source code in
> the hands of a for-profit US company".
>
>
> Spencer
>
>
> p.s. Regarding the risks of "putting source code in the hands of a
> for-profit US company," I would naively expect that it should be easy and
> cheap for someone to program a server to make daily backup copies of whatever
> we want from Github. This could provide an insurance policy in case events
> push the group to leave Github. Many (most?) of those who read this may
> remember how LibreOffice forked from Open Office. A friend told me that
> MySQL has a much larger user (and developer?) base than LibreOffice, and
> every Oracle executive doubtless knows that MySQL could similarly be forked
> relatively easily.
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
