Is it necessary to publish my whole repository (Unity Project) online to enable source control?

So I decided to use GitHub for source control for Unity and found out that I may publish it online for others to see, something I don't want to.

But do I really need to publish my repository in public to enable source control services? (I don't want spend money for "private" repository either)

 

So I can just don't press "Publish Repository"?

 

Atlassian's Bit Bucket is a git repository that permits you to have a free and private repo.

I know there's a lot of love for github but I personally really just see it as a open source software. They don't have pricing that works very well for the lowest tier of indie devs(those who aren't profitable).

 

SVN works well, might consider it...you can run it locally or remotely.

 

You don't need to use GitHub. You can use any number of alternatives. There's VisualSVN if you're fine with hosting on your own computer, there's BitBucket if you want to use cloud-hosted Git, and there's CloudForge if you want to use cloud-hosted SVN.

 

You can use SourceTree (commonly used for BitBucket, but can be used offline) for a local repository.

 

subversion is super easy to setup on your own machine.

a++. would trade again

 

$7 a month is not worth a secure remote backup location and source control provider for you?
That's hardly a lot of money.

Keeping your source in a local-only repository is stupid. What happens if your computer gets stolen or your drives crash? How much is your source code worth then?

 

agree

 

Nothing more need be said on Local vs Remote.

 

Thanks for replies guys!

Currently I am trying out Bitbucket + SourceTree combination.
I decided against GitHub because it suddenly removed all my files from project except from "Scripts" and I couldn't restore it. Fortunately I made a backup before transferring to GitHub. Plus paying for private repositories is pointless.

How do I synchronize my repository from SourceTree with Bit Bucket?

 

Huh? What's wrong with paying for a valuable service?

 

There are other services which provide you with private repositories for free.

 

That doesn't make the (good) paid ones "pointless". I happily pay for improved service, extra space, collab tools, security, etc. etc. etc.

As someone asked before, what's your code and your work worth to you? Sure not everyone needs paid service, but it absolutely has its place.

 

Saying "paid private repositories are pointless" basically boils down to saying "it's pointless to charge money for people to use those servers you're paying for to host their code"

 

I meant it's pointless for me. I don't want to pay $7/month because I can't afford it.

Sounds like I am a cheap guy, but:

There could be a case that gameplay wasn't as fun as expected and project could be canceled. As a result I would spend money for nothing.

Or, some people are not working and thus they don't have disposable income and thus cannot afford paid services like GitHub's privacy.

 

I use SVN on a local NAS drive and have never had problems.

 

I have a web host I pay for that costs $7 a month and arguably offers me considerable more services than 7 dollars for a repo.

I did not say 'its not worth it'. I said Atlassian has repo's for small teams for free.

One could infer because I am referring the OP to Atlassian/Bit Bucket that perhaps I use it myself and therefore I am not doing a local?

But I think from your response you prefer to infer other things, so who am I to argue with you?

 

I have switched to BitBucked + SourceTree. Both work pretty well, was able to push my project to BitBucket from SourceTree (I've heard that it was recently added).

Thanks for replies guys! It really helped me

 

25 cents a day isn't much. That's a cent per hour roughly. You would spend that by having a coffee. If it helps you save an hour's work per month, it breaks even.

 

Seems sort of pointless to keep trying to convince the guy to pay for github when he's been pointed to a free alternative...