Re: cvs better than git?

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

On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:06 PM IST, Johnny Billquist <bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote:

> On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> By the way. When it comes to outsourcing the software repository, I can
> really sum up my objections in just one word:
>
> TANSTAAFL.
>
> Anyone who thinks something else is simply deluding themselves.

there is indeed no such thing as a free lunch.
when you host your repository of "open source" _non-commercial_ software, you really don't mind microsoft using it to build better commercial software development tools for their customers by analyzing the source repositories using "machine learning" techniques. no one is losing anything, in fact, unless you are a super secret code repository, you are benefiting from the eco-system.