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
