On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 04:57 PM IST, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2020-06-17 12:37, [email protected] wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 03:42 PM IST, Mayuresh <[email protected]> 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?
