Development is done in the upstream OpenBSD codebase. A github clone
of the official repositories is kept at:
https://github.com/libressl-portable
We update this repository from the OpenBSD respositories
semi-frequently, so changes may not show up in GitHub immediately.
The GitHub repository should be used for informational purposes
only.
Again, XP works for many. That doesn't mean there aren't vanishingly few reasons to use it anymore. For CVS, there's the whole non-atomic changes thing, the whole no renaming files thing, no binary file support, no amending commits, no bisect (a feature which I believe sells the software even if everything else sucked), it's harder to collaborate with other users..
Holding onto objectively inferior tools due to a lack of desire to migrate because "it works for me!" is a huge plague on technology.
It's probably because, true or not, not the best argument. Other than the fact Microsoft ended support Windows XP is fine. It does the job. It's not the latest and greatest, but right to the end it was better than acceptable or tolerable, it was downright decent.
A hardware refresh at work gave me a 7 box, but I've still got my old XP box in a corner somehwere, heavily firewalled ofc now that support has ended, I remote desktop into it 5-10 times a month now for the few straglers I haven't migrated off, and its fine.
Yeah legacy does have support costs, but as I said, you're not building openbsd from source nor would you be if they were on a trendy vcs. That's why they mirror libressl on github, this is a case where they know outsiders might care. And one vcs or another you're going to the mailing list to submit a patch to them, so until you're in it, don't really matter.
I'm all for migrating to git, but at least one aspect of the OpenBSD workflow would take some serious thought to migrate: CVS supports having one giant repository containing everything (at least, as well as it supports anything else), even including project source code, whereas git really wants smaller per-project repositories that share common history with the corresponding upstreams. In light of that, migrating to git would require some non-trivial workflow changes, making it understandable that it hasn't happened in a hurry.
It depends how you work and how stable your product is. I think they are patch heavy i.e the CVS tree is used to apply patches to and that is that. CVS has some advantages then as you can pin individual file versions on a tag rather than having to fuck around merging things. Individual files might be ethernet drivers, scheduler etc because TBH the BSD codebase is a hell of a lot better decoupled and modular than most things out there.
License is one of the reasons. OpenBSD uses the BSD license, and has a strong preference for it when it comes to the base system, base tools, etc. There's no chance they'll move something so critical to GPL-licensed software.
$ uname
OpenBSD
$ cvs -v
Concurrent Versions System (CVS) 1.11.1p1 (client/server)
Copyright (c) 1989-2001 Brian Berliner, david d `zoo' zuhn,
Jeff Polk, and other authors
CVS may be copied only under the terms of the GNU General Public License,
a copy of which can be found with the CVS distribution kit.
Specify the --help option for further information about CVS
Unfortunately CVS isn't the only GPL-licensed piece of software in OpenBSD. But slowly, one by one, these things seem to get replaced with free and better alternatives. I can imagine a future in which we're free of GPL tentacles.
Development is done in the upstream OpenBSD codebase. A github clone of the official repositories is kept at: https://github.com/libressl-portable We update this repository from the OpenBSD respositories semi-frequently, so changes may not show up in GitHub immediately. The GitHub repository should be used for informational purposes only.