Re: cvs better than git?

[mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost <mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost>]

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 11:51:48AM +0200, Matthias Petermann wrote:
> > Will downstream projects such as pkgsrc and pkgsrc-wip also adopt
> > Mercurial and use them as their official SCM? That would be great.
>
> wip adopted git after a lot of deliberation.. Hope we don't change it
> again... wip is the layer with largest count of people with push access
> and unless there is some really good reason changing again is unnecessary.
> [snip]
> I am unsure about reasons behind NetBSD's inclination towards hg instead
> of git.

reasons! i am thinking along the lines of "hg" being more modern that 'cvs', but _is_not_ "git".
but then again, _wip_ does use "git", so what's the problem with using "git" across the board?
for a project which is as financially constrained as "netbsd", it would make "a lot of sense" to out-source as much of the infrastructure to free services as possible.
also, as i'd written in previously, if countries are going to ban access to "github" because of some reason, there's no guarantee that they would not also ban access to "netbsd" repositories, even if they are using 'cvs' or "hg", and if github is being compelled to ban access to certain countries due to US government regulations, those same regulations would apply to the "netbsd foundation" too and hence lead to enactment of bans from certain countries by the foundation to "netbsd" repositories.
i wonder where the actual problem is, but something does smell fishy.