8

Need examples to show management that these are used for source control and effectively backup of projects.

They will be concerned about having their source code off-site. If there are good examples I think that it may help in convincing them to consider this as an option.

supervan
  • 81
  • 1
  • 3
  • There is no need to have to code off-site. Github introduced [Github Enterprise](https://github.com/blog/978-introducing-github-enterprise) one year ago. – Michael Oct 03 '12 at 10:40
  • 1
    any non-open source code on Bitbucket or Github is going to be set to private, so you wont be able to link to it or show it to management. I have a few on there myself, but cannot show you them :p – Gavin Coates Oct 03 '12 at 10:49
  • You can't link to the private repos. But there may be blog posts of projects talking about their experience with Bitbucket/Github. I found two similar questions on Quora ([#1](http://www.quora.com/GitHub/Do-any-startups-use-GitHub-as-a-repository-for-their-private-proprietary-code), [#2](http://www.quora.com/What-startups-host-100-of-their-private-code-on-GitHub)). Maybe this helps? – Michael Oct 03 '12 at 10:57
  • 1
    is there any reason you want to store your git data on github or another platfrom for git hosting and not setup your own git server and use powerful tools like Jira – WojonsTech Oct 03 '12 at 11:33
  • 8
    @WojonsTech: There is a very good reason for not wanting to install, setup, administrate, secure, maintain, update, upgrade, repair, fix, monitor, scale, and configure your own git server: not wanting to install, setup, administrate, secure, maintain, update, upgrade, repair, fix, monitor, scale, and configure your own git server. I'm paid to create software, not to install, setup, administrate, secure, maintain, update, upgrade, repair, fix, monitor, scale, and configure git servers. – Jörg W Mittag Oct 03 '12 at 11:45
  • I am actually really surprised that GitHub does not boast with list of their corporate clients somewhere. They have a few (inlucing Microsoft!) on the front page, but it's all clients that host public code with them. – Jan Hudec Oct 03 '12 at 11:50
  • 1
    @JörgWMittag: All this would be the admin's job and not the programmer's. In the end it's a tradeoff between the expense you mentioned and the disadvantage of giving your code into someone else's hand. – Michael Oct 03 '12 at 12:38
  • @JörgWMittag I am sorry that i asked, I am in devOps so i do a lot of system admin and programming and I have had to install setup administate secure mainaine update upgrade repaid fix montor and scale and confgiure the git. the turth about it is scaling git reallly never happens among alot of things if the git server is running over ssh only your pretty safe to start with just have some puppet script that secure things then ssh will do the rest, you can also set it up on the cloud and make your office ip the only ip that is allowed to login over the ssh port. – WojonsTech Oct 03 '12 at 18:18

3 Answers3

8

GitHub is proprietary and is hosted on GitHub.

Jörg W Mittag
  • 101,921
  • 24
  • 218
  • 318
1

Your a bit out of luck there, as there's no way to gain insights into private repositories. Luckily, GitHub does have support for organizations and Bitbucket has an equivalent support with teams.

For no particular reason, I can give you an example of Engine Yard as one of the organizations that are using GitHub, but with a bit of repository browsing I'm sure you can find other businesses closely related to your niche that have a presence on one of the two.

I'm unable to find any adequate published sources right now, but I do have an understanding that their in-house support and maintainers do not have access to repository particularities such as source files, which is what I believe one of the main concerns would be for hosting your sources on remote services.

Filip Dupanović
  • 1,215
  • 8
  • 13
1

While I can't give you examples of companies using github for hosting, I can suggest some other arguments you could use in favour of using it.

One of the major advantages of distributed version control like git or mercurial is that each repository is a full or almost full backup. So you'll have central server hosted and managed by someone else, but even if anything catastrophic happens and github goes out of business, the damage will be quite limited.

You can also note that administrator you'd otherwise have will certainly be less experienced than the ones in big hosting company like github and thus your own server is actually more likely to fail. Because in a big server farm, individual servers die now and than, so all recovery procedures are tested. While with own server it will work fine for some years, so when it fails you can easily find yourself with broken backup or missing bits or such.

Jan Hudec
  • 18,250
  • 1
  • 39
  • 62