Looking for Rubyist's recommendations for free open-source Subversion
hosting now that Rubyforge is being (albeit ever so slowly) phased
out.
I host most of my work on Github and I am very happy with it (even
though I find using git itself a bit like working in a 1970s CS
lab ;). But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
I tried Google Projects and was quickly disappointed by the
limitations on source code browsing (it stops working if you have "too
many" files). The interface also feels a bit clunky (IMO). But the
repo was fast.
At the moment I am back to Sourceforge.org. Unfortunately it is VERY
SLOW. It also feels very outdated, hard to navigate, feature bloat,
etc.
Wondering if there are better options out there that others could
recommend.
Looking for Rubyist's recommendations for free open-source Subversion
hosting now that Rubyforge is being (albeit ever so slowly) phased
out.
I host most of my work on Github and I am very happy with it (even
though I find using git itself a bit like working in a 1970s CS
lab ;).
Then you're not using Git properly, I think.
But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
So does Git. In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
This goes double for open-source projects: Git really was designed with
the needs of open-source projects in mind, while Subversion was not. It
shows.
I tried Google Projects and was quickly disappointed by the
limitations on source code browsing (it stops working if you have "too
many" files). The interface also feels a bit clunky (IMO). But the
repo was fast.
At the moment I am back to Sourceforge.org. Unfortunately it is VERY
SLOW. It also feels very outdated, hard to navigate, feature bloat,
etc.
What's wrong with feature bloat? In my book, that's often a good thing.
Wondering if there are better options out there that others could
recommend.
The best option: use Git and Github. Failing that, I don't remember:
does Unfuddle provide free hosting for open source?
http://beanstalkapp.com has a free option and I've heard they are good.
No personal experience though. Looks like codesion (formerly cvsdude)
also has a free subversion hosting option.
enjoy,
-jeremy
···
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 01:43:19AM +0900, Intransition wrote:
Looking for Rubyist's recommendations for free open-source Subversion
hosting now that Rubyforge is being (albeit ever so slowly) phased
out.
I host most of my work on Github and I am very happy with it (even
though I find using git itself a bit like working in a 1970s CS
lab ;). But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
I tried Google Projects and was quickly disappointed by the
limitations on source code browsing (it stops working if you have "too
many" files). The interface also feels a bit clunky (IMO). But the
repo was fast.
At the moment I am back to Sourceforge.org. Unfortunately it is VERY
SLOW. It also feels very outdated, hard to navigate, feature bloat,
etc.
Wondering if there are better options out there that others could
recommend.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
That said, most other things about git are far nicer than git, so this
wart is something tolerable.
I love git, but it's strange how people can get all militant fan-boy
over it. Oh well, such is life.
-greg
···
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
Thomas Sawyer wrote:
Looking for Rubyist's recommendations for free open-source Subversion
hosting now that Rubyforge is being (albeit ever so slowly) phased
out.
I host most of my work on Github and I am very happy with it (even
though I find using git itself a bit like working in a 1970s CS
lab ;).
Then you're not using Git properly, I think.
But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
So does Git. In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
I agree that on the whole git is better, but not in all ways.
Subversion has certain merits, including being a bit more intuitive
(IMO).
Believe me I would use git if I felt it fit my needs here. I was using
Darcs way back when. I enjoy the benefits of distributed VCS. But in
this case, where I have a bunch of little odds-and-ends that I want to
keep subdivided but within a single repo, svn fits better.
···
On Jan 26, 11:48 am, Marnen Laibow-Koser <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
So does Git. In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
This goes double for open-source projects: Git really was designed with
the needs of open-source projects in mind, while Subversion was not. It
shows.
Of all the options I checked out I can't say any of them really popped
out as "the clear choice for hosting an open source project". I'm
probably wrong but until more info comes my way, or I have the time to
digg in deeper, I've decided to just hold out at SoureForge.
If anyone has any first hand knowledge of these providers, looks like
it's a subject ripe for blogging.
Thanks.
···
On Feb 4, 2:51 pm, Jeremy Hinegardner <jer...@hinegardner.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 01:43:19AM +0900, Intransition wrote:
> Looking for Rubyist's recommendations for free open-source Subversion
> hosting now that Rubyforge is being (albeit ever so slowly) phased
> out.
> I host most of my work on Github and I am very happy with it (even
> though I find using git itself a bit like working in a 1970s CS
> lab ;). But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
> explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
> suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
> I tried Google Projects and was quickly disappointed by the
> limitations on source code browsing (it stops working if you have "too
> many" files). The interface also feels a bit clunky (IMO). But the
> repo was fast.
> At the moment I am back to Sourceforge.org. Unfortunately it is VERY
> SLOW. It also feels very outdated, hard to navigate, feature bloat,
> etc.
> Wondering if there are better options out there that others could
> recommend.
http://beanstalkapp.comhas a free option and I've heard they are good.
No personal experience though. Looks like codesion (formerly cvsdude)
also has a free subversion hosting option.
But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
So does Git. �In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
That said, most other things about git are far nicer than git, so this
wart is something tolerable.
I love git, but it's strange how people can get all militant fan-boy
over it. Oh well, such is life.
I'm not meaning to be a militant fanboy. The couple of times I've gone
back to Subversion after starting to work with Git have convinced me
that I never want to work with Subversion again.
-greg
Best,
···
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
I've heard many people say this, which I find interesting. I guess it's all what you started with,
because I've always found Subversion less intuitive than Git. Things like to create branches
or tags in svn it's 'svn copy' whereas git has 'git branch' and 'git tag' have always been
stumbling blocks for me. It also drives me nuts that 'svn rm' and 'svn move' can't take
wild-cards.
All things considered though, I don't think it's worth a religious war, or even a hard
sell for one or the other. Use what works for you.
As to the original question, SpringLoops(Buddy: The DevOps Automation Platform) might
be worth a look. It's not as feature rich as some others, but it has the bonus
of letting you deploy via ftp/sftp.
···
On 1/26/2010 10:45 AM, Intransition wrote:
I agree that on the whole git is better, but not in all ways.
Subversion has certain merits, including being a bit more intuitive
(IMO).
So does Git. �In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
When things get complicated, yes. Google around for some of the problems.
I'm not meaning to be a militant fanboy. The couple of times I've gone
back to Subversion after starting to work with Git have convinced me
that I never want to work with Subversion again.
Likewise, but that's mainly because I have a lot of needs that Git
meets. Otherwise, it might not be so important which one I choose.
I know a lot of really smart Rubyists that still have this hangup
where they don't get git. I don't know why that is, but personally,
I rather them use svn than hear them constantly complain about how
"unintuitive" git is.
I do agree on your point that there are a lot of incentives for using
Git in open source, though.
-greg
···
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
I'd say that currently released versions of Git make working with
submodules pretty awkward. However, the upcoming 1.7 release of Git
gets rid of almost every last one of my complaints about working with
submodules. They're a lot harder to get out of sync, without
realizing it.
-Jacob
···
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:05, Marnen Laibow-Koser <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser >> <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
So does Git. �In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
To clarify, I wasn't referring to submodules or externals. By
"subproject" I meant literally keeping multiple projects in a single
repo. Subversion's advantage here is that a subdirectory can be
handled as an independent unit within the whole.
···
On Jan 26, 12:05 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > > <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
>>> But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
>>> explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
>>> suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
>> So does Git. In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
>> Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
> Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
> them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
All things considered though, I don't think it's worth a religious war, or even a hard
sell for one or the other. Use what works for you.
I'm usually up for a good religious war because, as it just so happens, I'm *always* right.
But I'd really like to see more pointers to good resources on various tools to help people make up their own minds.
I was at a gathering of Web developers the other night, and someone admitted to liking ans using Dreamweaver. The reaction from most of the other people there was hysterical. No, really, I think people got a bit hysterical because someone was using the Great Satan HTML Editor.
I've been guilty of playing that game myself, but now would rather just try to understand why people make different choices than me. I figure might actually learn something.
It's interesting to hear from people using svn (or whatever) given the git push (ha ha) among many Rubyists. Perhaps they have a style of working that others can steal from.
Yeah, it was nice how you could pretty much check out a folder of a huge repository.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Jan 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Intransition wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:05 pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
Gregory Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Marnen Laibow-Koser >>> <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
But I have a number of scrap projects, code snippets,
explorations, and so on, that I want to keep in a repo, something more
suitable to Subversion b/c it handles sub-projects well.
So does Git. In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
To clarify, I wasn't referring to submodules or externals. By
"subproject" I meant literally keeping multiple projects in a single
repo. Subversion's advantage here is that a subdirectory can be
handled as an independent unit within the whole.
So does Git. �In fact, Git does everything Subversion does, but better.
Do yourself a big favor and drop Subversion entirely.
Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
When things get complicated, yes. Google around for some of the
problems.
I'm not meaning to be a militant fanboy. The couple of times I've gone
back to Subversion after starting to work with Git have convinced me
that I never want to work with Subversion again.
Likewise, but that's mainly because I have a lot of needs that Git
meets. Otherwise, it might not be so important which one I choose.
It's still important. The typical Subversion user never realizes the
full potential of branching because Subversion makes merging so hard.
I know a lot of really smart Rubyists that still have this hangup
where they don't get git. I don't know why that is, but personally,
I rather them use svn than hear them constantly complain about how
"unintuitive" git is.
I would say the opposite. I didn't get Git for a long time. I only get
it now because I heard enough good things about it that I sort of forced
myself to use it.
I do agree on your point that there are a lot of incentives for using
Git in open source, though.
-greg
Best,
···
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Marnen Laibow-Koser > <marnen@marnen.org> wrote:
> Git handles subprojects, sure... but it's arguable whether it does
> them *well*
Is git submodule really any worse than svn external?
To clarify, I wasn't referring to submodules or externals. By
"subproject" I meant literally keeping multiple projects in a single
repo. Subversion's advantage here is that a subdirectory can be
handled as an independent unit within the whole.
I used to structure my Subversion repositories this way. In retrospect,
it's hard to see a particularly good reason for it -- at least in my
case, I never did the sort of cross-project reuse that it would have
facilitated. I certainly don't see it as a reason to avoid Git.
If you still want to do this, git-subtree looks like it might be the
right tool.
Best,
···
On Jan 26, 12:05�pm, Marnen Laibow-Koser <mar...@marnen.org> wrote:
