Hi Sean,

I share the exact same opinion as Doug.

I have used SVN for a while, and tested Git by curiosity two years ago. My first reaction was : WTF ?

I understood later that the reason of such a reaction was that I tried to reproduced SVN way of doing with Git, which is not an option of course.

Once you have assimilated Git's philosophy, it's really comfortable at least IMHO). For my point of view, its killer feature is what I call the "2-steps commit", 1st step being your local repo, 2nd step being the shared one to which you push commits later (or not). This allows trying things locally with the option to rollback all of parts of the changes, without polluting the shared repo. Really a nice option, especially for teams.

I use Git now for all my professional works, but also for private ones. Some of the project have no remote repo, Git being used then as a super-undo, ideal for experimentations. Just like Doug described.

WTR which server to use, both professional and private projects are hosted on GitHub actually, not disclosed pro ones using the private option you can subscribe to. For purely internal project at work, we have install HitLab (open source GiHub) on one of our servers, and use it more or less just as GitHub ("more or less" only because GitLab is one step behind GitHub in terms of features, but it is still a worths it).

Your reaction against Git is natural, and is shared by a great part of SVN and alike former users. But Git definitly deserves investing a bit of time to assimilate its way of life. Chances are that you'll joint it after. It's easier now that 1/ it has matured 2/ a lot of quite well written Web pages detail how to adopt it.

Just my $0.02

Best regards


From: ECJ Evolutionary Computation Toolkit [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Doug [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 15:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Google Code is going away

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 speed.)

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 workflow.

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 butt.

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?