[postgis-devel] repository hosting

[Paragon Corporation]

Greg,


  > avoiding agreements with companies, especially those involving indemnification
  > avoiding cookies from advertising companies
  > I prefer git, because I can carry local commits and have local history.


> I see a move to git as not primarily benefitting those with commit privileges.  Those people can commit changes when they judge them to be sound, so they don't tend to carry changes.  The benefit of git is in keeping changes from unauthorized committers (almost all 
> people, and the pool of future committers) within the tool.  When I work on NetBSD, I will often get a patch from people.  99% it does not come with a fully-written suitable commit message.  With git, the unit of what you review is a commit, and the message is part of 
> that.  So the real point is that git separates authority to make changes and ability to prepare a complete change.

> The other point is what tools new people are familiar with.   That
> really seems to be git.

> All that said, I have not found the use of svn or submitting patches in tickets to be a problem for me.  People (strk mostly for my patches)
> have responded quickly and committed them.   So while I think
> osgeo-hosted git is better, I don't think it matters that much.


Thanks for your comments.  Very helpful. I'm getting a better understanding of why people prefer git.  For my purposes I don't want the history on my disk drive, cause as you said as a direct committer I don't need it, and I'm already out of disk space with all the test postgres databases and builds  I've got that disk space is very precious to me.

So I think as long as we have a git mirror of some sort and are diligent about applying or rejecting patches, patch preparers should be well-served.


Thanks,
Regina