[mapserver-dev] move to github ?

[Alexandre Dube]

Hi,

   I don't want to spoil anything, but Github was hacked a few weeks ago 
[1].  Also, I've not been using it much, but every time I did I ran into 
"server problems" while navigating the pages.  I was forced to reload 
the pages until it finally worked, which took a while every time.

   Personally, I would much prefer the (1) option, or if any alternative 
to Github for git exists that could be hosted then that would be even 
better.  Just my 2 cents, though.

Kind regards,

Alexandre

[1] 
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120981-github-hacked-millions-of-projects-at-risk-of-being-modified-or-deleted


On 12-03-19 12:52 PM, thomas bonfort wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I would like to get the ball rolling and start talking about switching
> from svn to git, and trac to github. I don't think it's worth
> enumerating the advantages of git over svn for collaborative
> development, but there are a few issues that will probably spark
> discussion.
>
> I believe we have multiple options, which mostly revolve around
> keeping our actual trac instance, or moving entirely to github.
>
> option 1: host our own git server, keep our current trac instance.
> this option is probably the less disruptive, and prevents us from
> relying on github. But it is also the option that prevents us from
> using the nifty features github offers, namely pull requests, commit
> commenting, online editing for quick fixups, ...
>
> option 2: host the code at github, keep our trac instance. probably
> not a good option, as we'd have to juggle between trac features and
> github features
>
> option 3: host code and tracker on github, import all trac tickets to github.
>
> option 4: host code and tracker on github, starting with a clean slate
> and having users migrate the tickets that are still current.
>
> My personal preference is option 4. Option 3 will probably be a
> consequent task, for little added value imho (as a large number of our
> open tickets have become invalid with subsequent releases). The
> OpenLayers team chose to go with a mix of option 2 and option 4, and
> will probably go with option 4 only, given the advantages offered by
> github.
>
> any other options? what are your thoughts?
>
> regards,
> thomas
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev


-- 
Alexandre Dubé
Mapgears
www.mapgears.com