[avar]

Let's make something clear: They can, and they use other GPL software in the base system.

They just choose not to, for (as I understand it) a combination of reasons. Being averse to relying on new GPL code, being "happy enough" with CVS (also working on OpenCVS), and CVS being a little more than just source control for them due to the likes of CVSync[1].

I have patches in Git. If OpenBSD doesn't want to use it that's fine by me, and I wish them the best of luck. But let's be clear, it's not because we're telling them they can't use it.

1. https://www.openbsd.org/cvsync.html

[Crinus]

Aren't "patches in Git" just "patches"? Git can give you a patchfile that can be applied with "patch" regardless of VCS.

[sneak]

from GP: "I have patches in Git. If OpenBSD doesn't want to use it that's fine by me, and I wish them the best of luck. But let's be clear, it's not because we're telling them they can't use it."

I think he means he is a contributor to the source of `git` itself, and thus is justified in saying "we" in terms of not prohibiting OpenBSD's contributors from using the software he helps develop (git).

[avar]

Correct. Thanks!

[simias]

>also working on OpenCVS

Are they really though? I can't remember for how long "OpenCVS is to be released soon"[1] but the page itself begins the copyright in 2004.

While I respect other technical decisions taken by the OpenBSD team this one strikes me as pure hubris. Sticking to SVN I could sort-of understand but CVS is just ridiculously frustrating to work with.

[1] https://www.openbsd.org/opencvs/index.html

[s_ngularity]

Looking at archive.org, the page has had "to be released soon" since at least 2005 [1]. So I think your skepticism is in order.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20050130011942/https://www.openb...

[jvink]

> (also working on OpenCVS)

Not actively. It has been in hybernation for a long time.

Not counting the recently-ish fixes I committed not much is happening with it.