Project hosting vs. my own SVN

views:

121

answers:

+1 Q:

Project hosting vs. my own SVN

I'm working on different projects with some small teams (2-3 people for each).

Those projects are about some scientific stuff, most (probably all) the code will be released under GPL after the publication of some results and we don't want to spend money for this.

My first question is: should i keep my local SVN server or you know some good service for this?

Both of them have some disadvantages and services like xp-dev.com looks pretty interesting but should i trust them? [i'll get only the free plan]

Online services give you some tools for project management, what do you think about them?

UPDATE: code shouldn't be visible to !teammates until it will be released

+2 A:

for svn check out Assembla - https://www.assembla.com/plans

scroll down to the 'Free Repositories' / 'Free Public Workspaces'

or switch to git and use GitHub?

http://github.com/plans - Open source is free

running your own server seems like extra work to me? backup, admin, etc...

house9 2010-05-07 23:37:19

yes my own server is an extra work but i want to keep the source closed until the public release

BigG 2010-05-07 23:39:15

Github now supports SVN reading and writing. Github++

b14ck 2010-05-07 23:42:13

The assembla 'Free Repositories' option appears to be both free and private - offering git or svn - 2 GB limit, seems to fit the bill

house9 2010-05-07 23:48:36

yes, that's cool.do you use it? uptime? is it safe?

BigG 2010-05-07 23:52:03

yes, I have been using paid version for about 2 years; never had any issues, before that I used free version for awhile.

house9 2010-05-07 23:56:20

I use Beanstalk personally, and I absolutely love it. It does deployments, and web hooks, so you can integrate it with whatever tools you want.

webdestroya 2010-05-07 23:38:35

+1 A:

I use Google Code, which provides Subversion and Mercurial as source control options. It's great for open source stuff. Microsoft has started their own hosting called CodePlex which looks promising.

As long as you're working on open source software, you shouldn't need to pay for hosting, there are plenty of free project hosts available.

Online services are great, you don't need to worry about managing a machine to serve the central repository and it's quickly and easily available to others via links, clean interfaces and ~100% uptime.

Matt Joiner 2010-05-07 23:39:27

I second the vote for google code. It may be slightly less featureful than bitbucket, but the simplicity is a blessing in many cases. It has exactly the right number of features.

Paul McMillan 2010-05-07 23:41:07

ok but i want to keep the source private until i decide to release it.We want a private repo while we're writing code :)

BigG 2010-05-07 23:42:36

I never understand the desire to keep code secret until it magically stops sucking. Just put it all public, all the way, what's the difference? Not to mention it's version controlled, we'll know all your dark dirty secrets when it's made public.

Matt Joiner 2010-05-08 06:02:31

The code is a by-product of his research, he doesn't want to make his findings public until his research has been officially published.

crowne 2010-05-08 10:27:53

+2 A:

How about having two repositories, One for unpublished code where rights can be managed. I've used Unfuddle, it is free and I had no complaints. Once the source is ready, simply synchronise with your public repository, on CodePlex for example and check in.

The entire process can be automated and made part of your build script which can be hosted in something like TeamCity or simply kicked off with a batch file.

Johan Badenhorst 2010-05-08 08:42:59

I'm next to Unfuddle, it's very elegant and simple. Saves tons of time to keep the team in sync. Invaluable service.

Dima 2010-05-08 09:16:49

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Project hosting vs. my own SVN

related questions