git sucks. mercurial ruleZ, i want a mercurial mirror. And python in base... and some icecream.
André 2012/8/6 Franco Fichtner <slash...@gmail.com>: > On Aug 6, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > >> Well, I have an actual list of advantages that git may offer: > > Thanks, Marc. Good listing! I wonder what CVS brings to the table on the > bright side? > > I understand everything that's been said. I've even come to hate GPL'ed > software just because of using the license in the first place (didn't come up > yet, but I know this is an issue, too). But I don't think git would be the > downfall of OpenBSD. There's too much drive and too much brains at work to go > down the slippery slope. But don't let that get to your heads. :P > > Git doesn't force a workflow on you. Where I used to work, I'd rather have > everyone push their changes to the master (or trunk) commit by commit, telling > them to break down larger changes, keeping bug fixes and features separate, > wiping out stupid merges that did not even cause any conflicts, etc. Linux > Kernel maintainers have done this for years, even the manual apply of hundreds > of emailed patches. > > You can go the other way and maintain a ****-load of local patches, ponder on > dead-end feature branches, do trigger happy merges, but you don't have to at > all. Rebasing patches to avoid merges is the holy grail of git. Cherry-picking > the most interesting commits on top of this functionality is even more > awesome. Ok, back to the original question... > > Having an up-to-date git read-only mirror (on github, or where ever it's hip > to put it) would be nice. I really don't mind the hipster crowd to go and fork > the repository. I don't think those people would bother going through the > painful process of sending patches the OpenBSD way with all the hassles in > place. Maybe like this, it's going to be easier to grab stuff as a maintainer > and get more exposure on general. > > > Franco
