Hi there, I also think that moving to git is a good step but Mercurial would have been as good, both are decentralized and powerful SCM, which is what really matters ^^
Gitorious as a service (https://gitorious.org/) 'just works' nicely and would have been a good alternative to GitHub IMHO my almost 2ยข On 08/01/2013 23:07, Daniel Gibson wrote: > I think github is a very good choice. > It works (in contrast to gitorious) and is really fun to use. > > I think the usual objections against cloud-based services don't apply here: > * they can't steal source/intellectual property because it's open source > anyway. > * a vendor-lock-in or something like that isn't really an issue either: > everyone who clones the repo has the whole history etc, so even if > github suddenly wants money or goes out of business it's easy to set up > something like gitorious again with a clone of the git repo. > > This would probably make sense for iodoom3 as well, even though I'm not > sure it would help very much.. the interest in the doom3 GPL code seems > to be quite low (same for d3 bfg) and with dhewm3 there already is a > working port.. so no one will want to start again from the beginning, > even though some people seem to be unhappy with dhewm3.. > > Cheers, > - Daniel > > Am 08.01.2013 04:50, schrieb eviljoel: >> Hi, >> >> Eh, finally replying to e-mails. Was an online hermit for the last >> few days. >> >> I totally agree with moving to git and have no objection with GitHub. >> But the one part of the question you didn't answer is that Zakk had >> some reason for moving Doom3 from GitHub in the first place. Maybe he >> didn't like a big corporation controlling his repositories or >> something like that??? I guess what I want to know is what his >> problem was with GitHub and what made him change his mind. >> >> And I guess you are right, I am mostly curious about this because of >> ioDoom3. I don't want to put in a lot of time improving the server if >> we are just going to move to GitHub soon anyway. I guess I'll ask >> Zakk about that one-on-one. (Plus this is the wrong list for that.) >> >> Thanks for your input Ryan. >> >> Laters, >> eviljoel >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Ryan C. Gordon<iccu...@icculus.org> >> wrote: >>> >>>> There was also the whole Mercurial debate not too long ago. >>> >>> >>> The consensus was that I liked Mercurial, and everyone else liked >>> git. :) >>> >>> Moving off svn is a no-brainer in 2013...it's old and busted. Git is >>> fine, >>> and my experience is that most people don't want just a git repo, they >>> specifically want GitHub (and those that don't want GitHub...hey, you >>> still >>> get a standard git repo from it!). >>> >>> Also: this is where id software has their canonical repos for their open >>> source releases, now, too. >>> >>> Also: as I'm sure you've discovered recently, keeping Gitorious >>> running is a >>> big pain in the ass. :) I don't know what zakk wants to do with >>> iodoom3, >>> but if we're going to make a switch for ioquake3, we might as well go >>> to a >>> nice infrastructure that someone else keeps up and running for us. >>> >>> --ryan. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ioquake3 mailing list >>> ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org >>> http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org >>> By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl. >> _______________________________________________ >> ioquake3 mailing list >> ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org >> http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org >> By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl. > > _______________________________________________ > ioquake3 mailing list > ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org > http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org > By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl. _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
