Git Migration: github with svn access

Geert Janssens janssens-geert at
Mon Aug 13 05:45:44 EDT 2012

On 11-08-12 20:36, Derek Atkins wrote

> Any chance we could rename this "Git Migration" instead of "Github
> Migration"?  I don't think we will ever full migrate fully to github.  I
> just think it's a bad idea to let go of master.
> (I tried sending a message like this this morning but it doesn't appear
> to have left my phone.  Or I just missed it).
I have renamed the page and started a section for the ongoing discussion 
on github vs hosting. I have added arguments pro and 
con as I see them so far (and what I've read on the list).

Please state your own pro and con ideas as well so we can complete the 
full picture. You can do so either directly on the wiki page (but ping 
people on the list if you did so) or on the list. I'll add the 
additional info in the wiki then.

As for my personal preference, if we can solve the technical issues 
regarding our scripting hooks, I'd prefer to move to github as well. As 
long as there are multiple active developers working from a cloned git, 
we don't have to worry about integrity (each one has his own private 
copy of master that can easily be compared if needed). This is inherent 
to git. The advantages I see with github is more visibility and a lower 
treshold to cloning ("forking" as github calls it), which directly 
increases the chance of contributions.


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list