Re: cvs better than git?

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

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:57 PM IST, Johnny Billquist <bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote:

> On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I know I'm in a very small minority here, but personally I hate git. I
> sortof suspect I will not like hg either, and when the switch happens,
> it might just mean I'll stop using NetBSD. The whole idea of local
> repositories and then trying to sync with a central one is just an added
> layer of problems, in my experience, with no added value. I don't know
> how many times I've seen local git getting so messed up the easy
> solution was just to wipe it all and start over again. A very
> windows-like mentality, which I'm sure more people today are perfectly
> fine with, but I'm not.
>
> However, I'm certainly not going to try to convince people to not move
> towards it. I just felt like ranting over a tool that is so broken in my
> view, but which it seems the whole world have gone crazy about. :-)
>
> But I see a clear problem with outsourcing the whole repository. There
> is much more to it that government regulations, even if that sometimes
> can also be an issue. But these kind of services can suddenly just go
> away, or change terms and conditions in a way that makes them not viable
> anymore. I have a really hard time understanding why anyone would want
> to put themselves at the mercy of something so fickle unless there is
> some other very compelling reason to do it.
>
> Seems like people think the only problem would be governments, for which
> the exact place or entity handling it matters less. And yes, with that I
> do agree. If it was only a concern with governments, then I would also
> not see any added value by running the infrastructure on my own. But for
> me, that is not the main reason, or even much of a reason at all.
>
> Which previous, initially free and open revision control repository was
> it which then ended up changing their terms and conditions so that
> everyone more or less had to move away immediately? I do remember that
> it did happen once already...

there are _over_ 2 million organizations hosting their repositories at github.
microsoft just can't expect to get away with being fickle. you understand what i mean?