Migrate on Github?

[s0r00t]

Hey,

I got this migration idea for multiple reasons :

1 - Travis build system (so build check)
2 - Better than Google Code (better interface, better issue tracker)
3 - Github, what else? :3

It's not much, but at least it starts the idea :D

[richwiki101]

How about something better in terms of freedom? Gitorious (https://gitorious.org/) is not only a hosting service similar to Github but is also operable by itself. Unlike Github, which is a primarily proprietary service, Gitorious is free/libre and open source software, licensed under the GNU AGPL 3.0 (Affero General Public License(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html)). This can open up the possibility of adjusting a local version of this service so that it works best for this project.
If any one of you have interest in this alternate service, here are some more details: https://gitorious.org/about

[s0r00t]

IDK, never tried.

GitHub is maybe proprietary, a lot of their works are open source (Travis for example).

[Lord Aro]

We do actually already have a github mirror: http://github.com/FreeRCT/FreeRCT which does have travis running

As for actually moving to github (or whatever, i'm not too concerned about such matters), it's a bit more difficult:

1) The large number of large binary files (the graphics) makes a git repo very large and difficult to checkout

2) Github's issue tracker is actually quite primative, not allowing to upload files (crash dumps, screenshots, etc)

3) Alberth doesn't like git very much (i've tried to convince him otherwise :p ) He wouldn't be opposed to an hg repo though (bitbucket)

[s0r00t]

1) I have a repo with a lot of binary files, it can be difficult.
2) I prefer it contrary to GC one.
3) Why not Bitbucket, true. I like it too :P But unfortunately it's not as popular as GitHub.

[Alberth]

Travis is very nice, but we are not quite yet at the stage of making binaries for users, so it's not that bad not to have it.

Google code also doesn't have a download site for binaries that we may have one day. Their solution is google drive, but never used it, no idea if that would be useful.

The issue tracker and other facilities are a lot better than github, in my experience. Markdown language is too simplistic, it misses some important features like preserving the layout of the entered text, and the ability to escape from mark-up. Some character sequences simply cannot be entered as text in a message. Also, ever tried to look at a file (eq a patch) with lines longer than 80 characters at github? Not being able to upload any data other than images is just plain silly.

Pull requests are a formalization of a patch. The idea is nice, but in my experience it is too rigid. It assumes patches are accepted without any form of twiddling, which in my experience is never the case. Twiddling in the form of rebase means you are basically working without version control system (to try, mess up a rebase real badly, and have fun recovering from it).

The biggest problem of github for me however is git itself. "not liking" is an understatement. git is just bloody annoying to work with. I think a vcs should help me, instead of adding to the problem. It has modes and stages for everything, and is too technically oriented. "git branch" does everything with branches? wrong. What makes it think I can plan 5 patches ahead when I have to provide a file for rebasing commands? My coding problem is sufficiently complicated, thank you.
Why does it think I don't need an order between revisions that you can read?