On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:33 PM IST, Matthias Petermann <m...@petermann-it.de> wrote:
> Hello, > > Am 17.06.2020 um 12:37 schrieb mayur...@kathe.in: > > > > > 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.
