That might be bogus logic, I don't know -- it's more of a gut feeling.
What risk are you trying to avoid?
If gitlab or github is down and you have the repo locally, you don't have an issue.
If you've already handed off the repo to someone else, that's on them to store it and it'll likely be under their account.
I guess it's not clear from your intro what features you use 3rd party git hosting for other than backing up your repos.
Are you submitting pull requests to clients? Tracking issues? Other?
Yes, multiple machines.
>What risk are you trying to avoid?
I wouldn't say there's a perceived risk as such. I've run my own git infrastructure until now, and I want to stop doing that. The risks I've had were with GitLab CE updates clobbering my server (happened three times now), which then involves a few hours of rebuilding.
>I guess it's not clear from your intro what features you use 3rd party git hosting for other than backing up your repos. >Are you submitting pull requests to clients? Tracking issues? Other?
Tracking issues, yes - lots. Pull requests to clients, that will come very soon with external hosting. CI is not on the shopping list at this stage, but may be used if it's available.
Anyway, I would just go with GitLab regardless. It is more of a turn key solution than GitHub. You can set up automatic builds, use project management tools, etc.
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/merge_requests?scope...
I should clarify: I was referring to infrastructure issues rather than code quality. If servers go offline, I'm assuming the paying clients have a higher-grade SLA to no-cost clients, even if it's a few hours different.
The basic GitLab.com plan is free and runs their EE version, and yeah, it looks like you can get 4-hour support with their Silver plan [1].
(I haven't been keeping track of GitLab.com's features lately, but I'm glad they're charging for features that aren't essential to indie developers like me.)