On 2020-06-17 12:37, mayur...@kathe.in wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh <mayur...@acm.org> 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...
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: b...@softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
