Why R-project source code is not on Github
One thing to note about git vs svn is that each git repository is a complete repository containing the full history, so despite github acting as a central repository, it is not the same as a central svn repository. In svn the central repository is typically the only repository with a complete revision history, but that is not the case with git. ????? Brian Lee Yung Rowe Founder, Zato Novo Professor, M.S. Data Analytics, CUNY
On Aug 24, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at structuremonitoring.com> wrote:
In addition, several members are skeptical about putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company, and other legal issues. These are just some of the concerns that would need to be addressed to get everyone on board.
Am I correct that we could use Git without Github?
If yes, the planning might involve a cost-benefit comparison of what would be required bring up a not-for-profit alternative to Github (e.g., RGit.org or FreeGit.org or ...), and whether the risks of problems with that would be more or less than the risks associated with "putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company".
Spencer
p.s. Regarding the risks of "putting source code in the hands of a for-profit US company," I would naively expect that it should be easy and cheap for someone to program a server to make daily backup copies of whatever we want from Github. This could provide an insurance policy in case events push the group to leave Github. Many (most?) of those who read this may remember how LibreOffice forked from Open Office. A friend told me that MySQL has a much larger user (and developer?) base than LibreOffice, and every Oracle executive doubtless knows that MySQL could similarly be forked relatively easily.