Re: cvs better than git?

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

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:33 PM IST, Matthias Petermann <mp%petermann-it.de@localhost> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Am 17.06.2020 um 12:37 schrieb mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> I see it a little differently. Regardless of geoblocking etc., in my 
> view it makes sense to invest in your own basic infrastructure. And if
> only as a scaled-down backup environment. Even customers who move their
> entire IT to cloud data centers do this. This is exactly how you secure
> your negotiating position in the event of contract changes, price
> increases or even termination of the services without notice. Caution
> should be exercised here, especially when it comes to free services, 
> because where there is no formal contract, the service can be
> discontinued or regulated at any time.
>
> But I also think that this discussion is not absolutely necessary. In
> the Git world in particular, it is very easy to set up automatic mirrors
> of upstream repositories and to keep them up to date. For example, I do
> it for all the open source libraries that are important to me, on which
> the solutions I create for customers depend. The NetBSD project could
> run its own replicas at any time, even without a "fat" and
> maintenance-intensive infrastructure. But then at least everything would
> be available for an emergency to get back on your feet quickly.

investing in minimal infrastructure for backups is fine, but i believe the resources (financial and human) required for initiating and maintaining a full-blown private versioning system must be wild.
as far as i know, even the "illumos" developers are using github as their primary infrastructure solution.
that's the primary reason why i stated that "something does smell fishy" about the core motives behind netbsd not being moved to github.