Le 22/10/2015 21:00, Sven Van Caekenberghe a écrit :
Git is a DISTRIBUTED source code management system, it does not really live on one server. Technically, your and everybody else's local copy contains everything. You can move it around at will.
The github functionality on top of that *is* restricted to their site, although there are pretty good clones.
I would not fear for a lock in.
As long as we are agile, i.e. have the ability to switch to a new platform at reasonable cost, then I'm not worried. The Github choice is about exposure. Thierry
On 22 Oct 2015, at 20:15, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel@me.com> wrote:
I agree with you. Github should definitely not be the unique place for code. But we should be able to have code there at a low cost.
Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 22.10.15 um 17:30 schrieb monty:
Github is a private VC funded company that we don't own that tomorrow could go away or adopt policies harmful to us. If Ruby can have rubygems.org (and if Steph can continue to get funding from INRIA/ESUG), then why can't we have something like STHub that's ours?
+1 Github may be hip today but can be outdated in a few years. If Smalltalk would have chosen a version management technology that was en vogue in the 80s where would it be now? Does anybody even remember one of those from then? Having nice github integration (or whatever might be the technology of the day) is one thing, completely relying on it is something different.