Git Migration: where to host the master repository

Derek Atkins warlord at MIT.EDU
Mon Aug 13 09:31:22 EDT 2012

Christian Stimming <christian at> writes:

>> 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.
> Actually this point is one where IMHO there is not a consensus about
> it. In my opinion, we can very well migrate the master repository to
> github (or any other git repo provider). I don't consider the risk of
> code corruption any larger on a git repository other than one on
>, as git's checksum prevents unnoticed code changes by
> design anyway. (That's different in SVN, though, where the integrity
> of the server repository is much more vital than for git.)
> I remember you have always voiced very clearly you prefer to host the master 
> repository on a server that's controlled by one of the gnucash team. But 
> actually I think differently about this point and would prefer to host the 
> master repository somewhere that requires the least effort for us. IMHO that 
> does not have to be a server under our control.

It is a tradeoff.  There is still effort involved in either case, it's
just offloading who has it.  Even github has had its share of issues
(c.f. the ruby on rails mass assignment bug that let someone take over
as an administrator of the website).  I don't know if github has had any
long term issues with site stability, but I would bet that they have had
some relatively short git outages, too.  (Didn't they have a multi-hour
outage a year or so ago?)

We're still maintaining our server for email, wiki, build, docs, irc
logs, etc.  So we're already doing system maintenance, and moving to
github doesn't really reduce the amount of configuration necessary.  We
would just need to add the git support to our server, which should be
relatively straightforward.

Yes, using git does give us some improved repository security
vs. subversion or cvs, so the security of the code isn't as big an issue
anymore.  Also the fact that every developer has a full copy of the
repository is another security benefit of git.

I still think we do want to limit who can push changes into the master
repository.  I hope we can all agree on this point?  Yes, we could
*probably* do that with github; I don't know for sure.

One other problem with github (which IMHO is a critical issue for me
personally) -- none of my user names are available.   ;)

> Regards,
> Christian


       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL:    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available

More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list