Re: cvs better than git?

[Nikita Gillmann <nikita%n0.is@localhost>]

On 2020-06-17 10:55, mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 02:16 PM IST, Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote: 
>  
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:40:36AM +0200, mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost wrote:
>>> i am not an expert at version control systems to understand this by myself.
>>> would like to understand why 'cvs' is preferred over "git" under netbsd.
>> It is not prefered. Just moving from one system to another is an
>> enormous task with something as big as the NetBSD repository - and when
>> the repository was created, many of todays alternatives did not yet
>> exist.
>>
>> We will be moving from cvs to mercurial some time real soon, and from
>> there other formats (like git) are easily (and instantly) available.
>>
>> Of course you can (for read-only access) use the git mirror now already
>> (with a small delay of a few hours caused by the transformation process).
> thank you for the detailed and pertinent response.
> i can understand why netbsd started off with 'cvs' and has stuck with it for so long, but now that something like "git" is available then why not move to it instead of "mercurial"? that way the project can move the source repository to github and lessen one of the loads of managing the infrastructure for the source code management system, or is moving to github not considered safe because of the service's ownership by microsoft?
>
I seem to remember that moving to GitHub is not an option because of
infrastructure and security requirements,

and outsorcing it to Github comes with additional issues like GH being
blocked in some countries.

mercurial is as old as git, but git has an (visibly) higher usage rate
in open source projects today.

mercurial -> git migration would takes less time if CVS->mercurial is
done once properly.