The hosting does work over ssh, but I'm noticing some quirks
- the ssh urls are displayed incorrectly. This may be fixed in the
latest upstream (the version we're using is several weeks old) but
I haven't checked yet. For the dummy repo I created:
* actual thing to clone if you want it to succeed:
- http hosting doesn't work yet. I have some more tweaking to do in
order to get that functional but it's do-able
Does this mean that phab repos can't be accessed publicly at this moment? What about
public git:// access, is that supported/working?
Does the http hosting require fixing some bugs, or is it purely a configuration issue?
- The repo names are ... weird. I understand why they end up like they
do, but I was hoping the uris would contain the repo name, not the
That's a bit unfortunate. Does it mean that we need to differentiate all our repos by
4-letter access codes?
That would also mean that people cloning the repos need either provide a reasonable name
to the git clone command, or they'll end up with cryptic directory names for our
The setup is pretty straightforward and doesn't really mess with the
git hosting itself - just injects phabricator into the ssh auth
mechanism in a similar way to how gitolite works. If we did
decide to go this route for code hosting and something did go
horribly wrong, we have backups of the raw repos and it would be
pretty easy to resurrect them outside of phabricator.
Another feature that I haven't looked at much is mirroring - you can
configure repos to push commits to a remote repository. The advantage
here is that we could have the canonical upstream under our control and
have bitbucket/github mirrors that other folks could use to create
This might be a very good idea. We can use our system while the public can easily find and
access our code, fork it, send a pull request.
Or, if we find git hosting in Phab unsatisfactory, we can do it the other way round - host
code on Github/Bitbucket and clone to Phab (if it helps something, for example reviews).
When it comes to Github/Bitbucket choice, I played with them a bit and both seem pretty
equal. They are closed-source, they support teams, and because we won't need issue
tracking there's not many other differences. Only Github is more popular and more
people have an account there, so I think that would be the only reason to pick Github over