4 ms·
I would split it up like this. Pros: - You don't have to manage your own git server setup, certs, securing the server etc. (probably better uptime than your o
by arnorhs 14y ago
I would split it up like this.
Pros:
- You don't have to manage your own git server setup, certs, securing the server etc. (probably better uptime than your own server would have)
- Github's issue tracking and the wiki are usable
- You can use their pull request stuff, which might or might not be a good match for your workflow.
- You can also maintain public repos if you want to contribute at all to OS (though it's trivial to use github only for the public facing ones, just by adding a remote + auth)
- If you have a few repos it's very nice to browse them using github.
Cons:
- Limited number of repos, unless you are willing to fork out more $$
That's kind of it, the way I see it
- cpher 14y agoGood points--thanks. I'm not sure how much we'd use Github's advanced features in the near-term. Basically, they would just serve as the master repo. Yes, the number of repos is an issue for me. We have 20-30+ active projects, which may not result in large files, but when Github places limits on projects vs. space that becomes an issue. We're a consulting company, so we have lots of projects, many with repeat customers (hopefully). I'm stuck deciding on banking our SCM with a third party vs. self-hosting with no limits. Projects are usually short-lived (1-2 months) but we want to maintain a good archive of what we've done for future projects.
- ssylee 14y agoAlternatively, you can check out Atlassian's Bitbucket services. May be less pricey than Github's premium offering.