Shared repositories for global projects ?

Hi All - We're considering at implementing a shared source repository
for a set of projects whose members are sprinkled around the globe.
The project includes:
- a dozen smaller applications (100's of source files each),
- a Linux kernel
Client requirements include:
- Linux users and Windows users
- Easy views of changes (what changes were included in a version, who
changed this file when)
- the usual SCM branching, merging, versioning features
We'd like to minimize hassle of administration and as usual minimize
cost, so we're thinking about using a service. We're a little nervous
about performance of some services/SCM for a complete Linux kernel
(though some services support GIT, with optional SVN/CVS front-ends).
Some suggestions we've received include:

www.assembla.com
www.codespaces.com

What do you guys use ?
Thoughts ?

Thanks in advance,
Best Regards, Dave

Dave Nadler wrote:
> Hi All - We're considering at implementing a shared source repository
> for a set of projects whose members are sprinkled around the globe.
> The project includes:
> - a dozen smaller applications (100's of source files each),
> - a Linux kernel
> Client requirements include:
> - Linux users and Windows users
> - Easy views of changes (what changes were included in a version, who
> changed this file when)
> - the usual SCM branching, merging, versioning features
> We'd like to minimize hassle of administration and as usual minimize
> cost, so we're thinking about using a service. We're a little nervous
> about performance of some services/SCM for a complete Linux kernel
> (though some services support GIT, with optional SVN/CVS front-ends).
> Some suggestions we've received include:
> 
> www.assembla.com
> www.codespaces.com
> 
> What do you guys use ?
> Thoughts ?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Best Regards, Dave

Setting up and administering your own subversion server is not hard, and 
gives you full control.  But you have to balance the cost of running 
your own server against the cost of these hosting companies.

Forget CVS - there are very few cases when it is the right choice these 
days, as SVN does almost everything better.  Backwards compatibility 
(such as CVS revision tags in source code) is about the only reason.

SVN will have no problem with a complete kernel, although it will take a 
fair amount of bandwidth for full checkouts, or large diffs.

The big advantage of SVN over GIT is that SVN uses a centralised server. 
  The big advantage of GIT over SVN is that GIT does not use a 
centralised server.  Take your pick according to how you want to 
organise development.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com>
wrote:

>Hi All - We're considering at implementing a shared source repository
>for a set of projects whose members are sprinkled around the globe.
>The project includes:
>- a dozen smaller applications (100's of source files each),
>- a Linux kernel
>Client requirements include:
>- Linux users and Windows users
>- Easy views of changes (what changes were included in a version, who
>changed this file when)
>- the usual SCM branching, merging, versioning features
>We'd like to minimize hassle of administration and as usual minimize
>cost, so we're thinking about using a service. We're a little nervous
>about performance of some services/SCM for a complete Linux kernel
>(though some services support GIT, with optional SVN/CVS front-ends).

If you're considering a GIT-like distributed SCM, Mercurial is worth a
look.  Unlike GIT, Windows users have first-class support with
Explorer integration (TortoiseHg).

http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/
http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/wiki/Home

-- 
Dan Henry

I've been using Bazaar Version Control.  Bazaar is sponsored by Canonical
which also uses it to develop Ubuntu (Kubuntu, Xbuntu, Edubuntu).  They
really know how to do distributed development with two major scheduled
releases every year.  I've been surfing their latest releases for 3 years. 
I moved to Bazaar about a year ago from CVS.  At work I have to use windows
and Tortoise bazaar makes my life easier.

Eric

On Mar 26, 5:52=A0pm, Dan Henry <use...@danlhenry.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler <d...@nadler.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi All - We're considering at implementing a shared source repository
> >for a set of projects whose members are sprinkled around the globe.
> >The project includes:
> >- a dozen smaller applications (100's of source files each),
> >- a Linux kernel
> >Client requirements include:
> >- Linux users and Windows users
> >- Easy views of changes (what changes were included in a version, who
> >changed this file when)
> >- the usual SCM branching, merging, versioning features
> >We'd like to minimize hassle of administration and as usual minimize
> >cost, so we're thinking about using a service. We're a little nervous
> >about performance of some services/SCM for a complete Linux kernel
> >(though some services support GIT, with optional SVN/CVS front-ends).
>
> If you're considering a GIT-like distributed SCM, Mercurial is worth a
> look. =A0Unlike GIT, Windows users have first-class support with
> Explorer integration (TortoiseHg).
>
> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki
> http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/wiki/Home
>
> --
> Dan Henry

Thanks Dan - The website looks good and the bitbucket service
might do the trick. Do you have personal experience with either
Mercurial or Bitbucket ?
Thanks again,
Best Regards, Dave

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:30:38 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 26, 5:52&#4294967295;pm, Dan Henry <use...@danlhenry.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:54:33 -0700 (PDT), Dave Nadler <d...@nadler.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi All - We're considering at implementing a shared source repository
>> >for a set of projects whose members are sprinkled around the globe.
>> >The project includes:
>> >- a dozen smaller applications (100's of source files each),
>> >- a Linux kernel
>> >Client requirements include:
>> >- Linux users and Windows users

... snip ...

>> If you're considering a GIT-like distributed SCM, Mercurial is worth a
>> look. &#4294967295;Unlike GIT, Windows users have first-class support with
>> Explorer integration (TortoiseHg).
>>
>> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki
>> http://bitbucket.org/tortoisehg/stable/wiki/Home
>>
>Thanks Dan - The website looks good and the bitbucket service
>might do the trick. Do you have personal experience with either
>Mercurial or Bitbucket ?

I am trying out Mercurial in a non-distributed environment (i.e.,
locally and carrying repositories between systems) on a Linux kernel
and several small microcontroller projects.  So far, I quite like what
I am experiencing.  I have not yet used Mercurial hosting like
Bitbucket, Mozdev, SourceForge, etc.

-- 
Dan Henry