Hello Sean,

We went through a similar decision at my company (a small development / CRM
implementation shop) recently.  We've been a SVN shop forever, hosting our
own repositories.

Long story short, we ended up moving to hosted Git, GitHub in particular.
That's what I would recommend for ECJ.

(Some of our key points were things like:  That's what our customers are
using. That's what our new employees know.  And, for better or for worse,
Git seems to becoming almost the default system.  And I do really like the

Git is weird.  And I have to say I didn't like it very much at first.  But
it has grown on me quite a bit.  To the point that moved my own private
repositories to BitBucket (they have free private repos, GitHub doesn't)
and have been following a typical Git workflow for even my own single
person stuff.  Overkill, but I want to get used to how it is applied on a
multiperson project.  And I'm also starting to like the branch-merge

I'm just a hobbyist as far as ECJ goes.  It's the type of thing I play
around with on weekends for fun and to help keep my technical skills up.
But since you asked for opinions, GitHub is mine.  I would definitely avoid
hosting your own.  Been there, done that, and it's kind of a pain in the

Good luck,


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Google Code is going away this coming year.  This means that ECJ and MASON
> repositories will have to migrate, sometime before the summer, to another
> hosting site.  I'm thinking about where we ought to go.
> Some history.  ECJ and MASON were originally released as tarballs only
> here at GMU.  Then we moved to SourceForge under CVS. We soured on
> SourceForge following some long service outages and bad administration, and
> jumped ship to JavaDev (run by Sun) under SVN.  When Oracle took over Sun,
> JavaDev's days were numbered.  So we jumped to Google Code under SVN and
> have been happy there since.
> Some obvious options would be GitHub, BitBucket, SourceForge, and just
> using our own repository here at GMU.
>         - GitHub.  Big mindshare.  Negatives (for me): it's git only.  I'm
> definitely not a fan of git.
>         - BitBucket.  Negatives: free only for five committers per project.
>         - SourceForge.  Big mindshare.  SVN, Mercurial available in
> addition to git.  Negatives: we soured on it way back when.  Nightmare of
> advertisements and gunk.
>         - Roll our own.  We can do whatever we want.  Negatives: I get to
> be the administrator.  :-(
> ECJ and MASON are largely cathedral and so have never needed the features
> a DCVS provides; and in this situation a DVCS just results in extra
> unnnecessary steps, often long ones, to do commits and updates.  I'd prefer
> to stay with SVN, but could be convinced to move to mercurial.
> Any other suggestions?
> Sean