4 ms·

Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. Submitting patches on mailing lists or controlling access to using SSH will always be workable. The

by uxcn 11y ago

Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. Submitting patches on mailing lists or controlling access to using SSH will always be workable. The benefit of Github is the directory and collaborative aspect. It's much easier for people to contribute to projects now, and a lot of projects might not have grown as quickly without it. The central directory also makes it a lot easier for other people to find stuff which probably also plays a role. I doubt Github will go down the same path as Sourceforge.

__david__ 11y ago
> Losing code wasn't really a risk with Sourceforge either. You might not lose the latest code, but you'd lose the history and the commit comments. Those are significant. With github you'd lose stuff like issues, but I find those not nearly as useful as the commit history.
- uxcn 11y ago
  Git's definitely an improvement over Subversion (CVS, etc...). Without the commit history there's a lot you couldn't do (e.g. bisect stuff), but things would still be workable. Distributed models are almost always more robust than centralized ones though. As I understand it, the main benefits are still risks though (e.g. central directory). The code itself isn't really at risk, especially with signed commits.