[Kde-scm-interest] gitorious

[Thomas Zander]

On Monday 1. March 2010 01.45.38 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> The question is wheter they give us enough to be worth not just hosting it
>  on  our servers like we've been doing with svn.

That comparison is not entirely honest to ourselves; svn is a different layer 
in the stack as gitorious.
If we were talking about dumb hosting of git repositories like repo.or.cz does 
then the comparison makes sense. The comparison breaks when we take 
gitorious into account. And lets face it, *this* is the component that makes 
the difference. This is why amarok gets merge requests etc.
 
> I'd say our sysadmins have been doing a wonderdul job here and i'd propose 
> shifting that money to our of our own people if hosting a git server is
>  that  difficult compared to a svn server that needs that much dedication.

Half of the reason why at Akademy the majority of the people were saying they 
wanted to use gitorious comes from the above difference. Hosting svn is not 
very difficult in comparison to hosting a software infrastructure like 
gitoriuous. It is in development and our using of the gitorious web interface 
that is beneficial to us for the simple reason that they maintain the gitorious 
software and do silly things like database migrations on continues upgrades 
and handle bugs in there etc etc.

I'm in no way aware of the details and negotiations going on right now, so I 
don't know if this is all worth it. But I just wanted to point out that using 
gitorious.org is equivalent to using the gitorious web-software. Moving to 
another server (one we own) is not really going to have a huge difference as we 
*still* will run the gitorious software. Just avoiding the costs of getting an 
external party to maintain that server layer by shifting the responsibility to 
the sysadmins sounds shortsighted IMO.

-- 
Thomas Zander