Farewell to Google Code ... now where?
C. Michael Pilato
cmpilato at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 15:11:49 CDT 2015
On 03/16/2015 02:19 PM, Jens M. Felderhoff wrote:
> What about the ASF it also hosts Subversion itself, why not the book?
To be honest, I'm just not really interested in re-licensing or dealing
with the administrative overhead that the ASF brings to committership
and project management. Should I need to grant write access to the
repository to an O'Reilly editor or somesuch one day, I want the power
to be able to do so.
I have had second thoughts about using GitHub. Not because of any
political concerns of managing Subversion book source code with Git.
(It's 2015 -- get over it. If Subversion's reputation is that fragile,
there are far bigger issues to be dealt with.) But the svnbook
repository uses a non-traditional branching structure and I'm not
convinced that that structure will survive an automated Git conversion.
Moreover, it stands to reason that any book contributors are more likely
to be familiar with Subversion than with Git. For those technical
reasons, I think sticking with Subversion will be best.
I did seriously consider the Assembla idea, but they don't appear to
offer issue tracking or wiki for free accounts.
It's been a while since I used SourceForge.net ... does anybody have any
opinions about that platform?
More information about the svnbook-dev