[Matroska-devel] moving from Subversion to Git & Github.com?
moritz at bunkus.org
Sun Dec 30 17:44:40 CET 2012
I'm currently converting the repos. Works nicely so far.
I've also taken a closer look at SF's git offering. What I personally
don't like is that you have to install the "Git" tool once for each
repository you want to have. As we will have ~16 separate git repos
things will get crowded. I've attached a screenshot with three
additional Git repos -- now imagine having 16 of those.
> I'll have to check with VLC. They probably moved to git too so it shouldn't
> be an issue for them.
Yes, they've moved to git. Additionally I'm pretty sure they only use
releases of libebml/libmatroska as well: they do NOT include those
libraries in their source code.
> But from experience once you start changing, you see some people appearing that
> you had no idea of.
Sure, but those should be a few at most, and I consider asking them to
update their procedures to be acceptable.
> Yes, as long as each module is one repository, that's fine. On the other
> hand, working like that doesn't offer strong coherence between a version of
> one and a version of the other. For example when changing the spec XML file
> there will be 2 or 3 different repositories to update for that single
2 repos: the foundation one (for the specs & libmatroska2) and the
> I use it for all my Android stuff and it's very well done.
What I don't like about it, so far, is what I've written above. It may
be fine for one or two repos, but with quite a few of them?
> We still need website hosting though and I don't think it's possible on github.
Pure hosting is not possible, that is correct. They do offer some kind
of home page feature (called "GitHub pages"), but it is a
stripped-down version: only markdown can be used, no databases etc.
It's really meant for way simpler things than a full CMS as we use on
So I propose we keep the homepage on SF as well as your downloads.
I've already been hosting http://dl.matroska.org on my own server
since the CoreCodec server died (even since before that), so it's not
like we're pulling that much traffic via SF anyway.
> And I don't think it would be fair to SF to use them as host but not for the source (their core business).
A lot of other projects do just that. They pick some things from SF's
offerings but not others (e.g. use download mirrors and mailing lists,
but not the bug tracking of code repository). In my opinion that's
perfectly fine as all offerings come without any strings attached.
There's no obligation to use either all of their services or none of
them; they let people/projects chose.
> That said, VLC is using SF as a binary source but not the rest of the features and they are quite happy with it...
> OK, as long as the old SVN is there for reference, no big deal in killing
> unmaintained stuff.
I've already disabled write access to the SF SVN repo. My plan was to
let the repo live as a historic reference for the unmaintained stuff,
like you said as well.
I have to admit that I still favor github for the repo hosting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 16630 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Matroska-devel