I haven't been real active on Wesnoth, but I thought I'd share my thoughts, feel free to disregard them.
In my experience, GitHub is the best (most user/developer-friendly project hosting), I really wish we could find a way to make it work. I've always disliked sourceforge as the site always seemed very user-unfriendly (though I did just take a quick look at their site and it has gotten better, though still not great and the ads are too intrusive). One option to consider is Google Code which has a 4GB limit. I don't like it as much as GitHub, particularly the UI is basic/ugly. One major benefit of GitHub or Google Code over sourceforge is integrated code review. This is something I would have loved to have when I was more active on Wesnoth. Here's some other's thoughts on project hosting: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3435884/google-code-hosting-vs-sourceforge http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4093181/where-to-host-an-open-source-project-codeplex-google-code-sourceforge On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Eric S. Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: > Gna! does not host git repositories. Supposing it did, one of the > motivations for the move is a sense that Gna! is teetering on the > brink and not a safe place to remain. We need to pick a new > hosting site. > > GitHub has a lot of fans in Wesnoth's developer base. But it is not > going to be GitHub. The reason is size. > > AI0867 did a test conversion with git-svn to scope the size of the git > repo. With aggressive GC and repacking it is 1.4GiB. GitHub has a > limit of 1GiB per repo, not because of storage space but because they > fear downloaders becoming bandwidth hogs. Mordante asked the GitHub > admins for an exception to this policy; he was politely but definitely > denied. > > On IRC I have heard two different kinds of attempt to argue away this > denial. One was "but it's just described as a guideline, not a hard > quota". This will not wash; we asked the GitHub admins if they are > willing to host a 1.4GB repo and they said *no*. Trying to fly in the > face of that denial would poison our relationship with the site and > quite possibly get us kicked off for TOS violation. This is not a > risk that would be in any way prudent to take. > > The second form of evasion is various schemes to carve the repo into > chunks of less than 1GB size, by breaking out some subset of (a) > music, (b) the website branch, (c) the resource branch. > > This won't fly either. I could run exact numbers, but I don't need > to. We are *not* going to trim more than 400MiB off the main repo > this way (that's nearly a full third of the historical content!). And > even if we could, it wouldn't solve the real problem; what GitHub > cares about is the aggregate bandwith of our downloaders, not how it's > divvied up into parcels. They would (rightly) interpret a carve-up as > a skeevy attempt to end-run their refusal. > > The clincher is that our release manager wants (quite reasonably) that > everything that goes in a release bundle to be in one repo. That > precludes breaking out the music - and the other plausible split > candidates are small enough to be noise by comparison. > > So, no GitHub. I don't even have to get into my nervousness about > replicating the BitKeeper fiasco by relying on proprietary closed > source, or my near-certainty that trying to carve up the repo into > chunks would set us up for troublesome unanticipated synchronization > problems down the road. > > Given our circumstances, I think the obvious best candidate is > SourceForge. It doesn't have a size quota, we already own the > Wesnoth project there, and we'll be able to write our own > bugtracker integration hooks from git using the Allura API. > > However, I do not want to make that SourceForge decision unilaterally. > Senior devs and release manager, please weigh in on this. Please > either +1 or state a reasoned objection. > -- > <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> > > If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation > should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of > criminal acts reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so > after a century and a half of trying -- that they must sweep under the > rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the > northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both > Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 -- establishes the repeated, > complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. > -- Senator Orrin Hatch, in a 1982 Senate Report > > _______________________________________________ > Wesnoth-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev >
_______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
