5 ms·

I don't quite understand the aim, or why it overlaps with OpenBSD. This is to provide a different, simplified CLI to git?

UI_at_80x24 7y ago
I'm not a developer, (1) GIT is GPL licensed. OpenBSD does not use GPL code.[1] (2) The developers saw something about git that they thought they could improve. (usually based on security/code-correctness, see: OpenSSL, OpenSSH, unwind, openrsync, etc..) [1] https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > OpenBSD does not use GPL code OpenBSD has used a lot of GPLv2 code, until recently their platform compiler was a heavily-patched version of the last GPLv2 version of GCC. There are git implementations under permissive licenses as well. And it seems like GOT is yet another such implementation.
  - koenigdavidmj 7y ago
    You’re correct, but they also have a strong desire to replace these if possible. There was an old effort to replace gcc with the old pcc before they eventually settled on clang.
  - brynet 7y ago
    > a lot of GPLv2 code "A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5". GPLv2 licenced software: • cvs • texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manuals) • mkhybrid • readline • gcc/gdb/bintuils, supporting libraries libstdc++/libiberty* The amount of GPL licensed software the resides in OpenBSD base is trivial compared to the entirety of software comprising a complete Unix operating system. Including its own implementation of a wide variety of network protocols, and being the home of OpenSSH, and tmux and many more. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html * On architectures that have transitioned to a LLVM toolchain, we already have a reference platform (arm64) which doesn't build or install gcc/binutils or supporting libraries, this will happen on other platforms as well, where they're currently installed alongside clang. OpenBSD has already transitioned to clang, lld, libc++/libc++abi on i386/amd64/armv7/octeon.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > cvs You know, I had forgotten that they failed to bring OpenCVS to bear. Isn't it kinda silly to be concerned about replacing a GPLv2-licensed SCM with another one?
      - Fnoord 7y ago
        What are you on about? CVS is GPL. OpenCVS is BSDL. Git is GPL. Got is BSDL. I got nothing against GPL, but I am pro diversification (competition = good, monoculture = bad). Furthermore, these projects add more than just different license. Mainly, better security. PS: Got, trendy name. Got got?
        microcolonel 7y ago
        Sure, but the idea seems to be that using git, as is, would mean relying on more GPLv2 software; my point is that it doesn't. By all means, if OpenCVS or Got were actually brought to a useful state, that'd be great, but there's no great crisis of new GPLv2 reliance in using Git. I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. In the mean time, justifying not using Git for OpenBSD on the basis of license falls flat, when you realize you're using GNU CVS anyway.
        ben_bai 7y ago
        > I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. That would be got(1). Since yesterday version 0.3, 0.4 and then 0.5 was "released". It's still in early development but good enough for a casual user like me to import the OpenBSD src and start using it. Created some commits, branches, performed rebases. Looks great, but still some rough edges. Also tog(1) is great.
        Fnoord 7y ago
        Hi, I clearly misunderstood your post. I implied you didn't know the licenses while I did not understand the "to bear" part of your post, at all. Furthermore, I am sorry if I came across as offensive. You make a good point in this post, clarifying your viewpoint. A viewpoint I can relate to.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  > usually based on security/code-correctness, But note that they also tend to consider usability to be part of security and correctness; if the tool is technically correct but nobody can use it without shooting their own foot, then the tool is bad. Hence things like signify - yes gpg or openssl(1) can do what it does, generally, but you'd struggle to use them and be sure that you'd done it right.
saxonww 7y ago
See the other comment with a link to lobste.rs, but I'm afraid this entire project exists to reimplement git as a BSD-licensed tool. My eyes were rolling pretty hard until I remembered that git was basically born out of a license disagreement with BitKeeper. Kudos to the OpenBSD folks (and/or this developer) for sticking to their principles.
- compsciphd 7y ago
  the bitkeeper license disagreement impacted how the tool was used. Git's license really only impacts how its developed.
- enneff 7y ago
  I don’t think that’s the goal. I think it’s more about a clear user experience for their developers, who used CVS for a very long time. While CVS is more rigid and limited than git, it has some benefits too. I see this tool, got, as marrying the benefits of both tools.
  - MuffinFlavored 7y ago
    What are some of those benefits?
    - enneff 7y ago
      Unambiguous workflow, checkouts of only part of the tree, checkouts of specific files that are being worked on, and probably more that I can’t remember now since it’s been 20 years since I used CVS.
markphip 7y ago
In addition to the simplified CLI and the license, there is also the mention of using Unveil/Pledge throughout the code. That seems consistent with OpenBSD and probably is a big part of this. AFAIK, that is also something that would make the code fairly tied to OpenBSD at the moment at least. I've worked with stsp for a number of years on SVN. He is a thoughtful developer. I am not sure what got him started on this but I hope this comes together for him.

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

I'm not a developer, (1) GIT is GPL licensed. OpenBSD does not use GPL code.[1] (2) The developers saw something about git that they thought they could improve. (usually based on security/code-correctness, see: OpenSSL, OpenSSH, unwind, openrsync, etc..) [1] https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

microcolonel 7y ago
> OpenBSD does not use GPL code OpenBSD has used a lot of GPLv2 code, until recently their platform compiler was a heavily-patched version of the last GPLv2 version of GCC. There are git implementations under permissive licenses as well. And it seems like GOT is yet another such implementation.
- koenigdavidmj 7y ago
  You’re correct, but they also have a strong desire to replace these if possible. There was an old effort to replace gcc with the old pcc before they eventually settled on clang.
- brynet 7y ago
  > a lot of GPLv2 code "A lot" is quite the exaggeration for "at most 5". GPLv2 licenced software: • cvs • texinfo (for software lacking proper mdoc(7) manuals) • mkhybrid • readline • gcc/gdb/bintuils, supporting libraries libstdc++/libiberty* The amount of GPL licensed software the resides in OpenBSD base is trivial compared to the entirety of software comprising a complete Unix operating system. Including its own implementation of a wide variety of network protocols, and being the home of OpenSSH, and tmux and many more. https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html https://www.openbsd.org/innovations.html * On architectures that have transitioned to a LLVM toolchain, we already have a reference platform (arm64) which doesn't build or install gcc/binutils or supporting libraries, this will happen on other platforms as well, where they're currently installed alongside clang. OpenBSD has already transitioned to clang, lld, libc++/libc++abi on i386/amd64/armv7/octeon.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > cvs You know, I had forgotten that they failed to bring OpenCVS to bear. Isn't it kinda silly to be concerned about replacing a GPLv2-licensed SCM with another one?
    - Fnoord 7y ago
      What are you on about? CVS is GPL. OpenCVS is BSDL. Git is GPL. Got is BSDL. I got nothing against GPL, but I am pro diversification (competition = good, monoculture = bad). Furthermore, these projects add more than just different license. Mainly, better security. PS: Got, trendy name. Got got?
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        Sure, but the idea seems to be that using git, as is, would mean relying on more GPLv2 software; my point is that it doesn't. By all means, if OpenCVS or Got were actually brought to a useful state, that'd be great, but there's no great crisis of new GPLv2 reliance in using Git. I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. In the mean time, justifying not using Git for OpenBSD on the basis of license falls flat, when you realize you're using GNU CVS anyway.
        ben_bai 7y ago
        > I, for one, would welcome a git clone (hah!) built to the core OpenBSD quality standard, but it seems unlikely that anyone cares enough to do that. That would be got(1). Since yesterday version 0.3, 0.4 and then 0.5 was "released". It's still in early development but good enough for a casual user like me to import the OpenBSD src and start using it. Created some commits, branches, performed rebases. Looks great, but still some rough edges. Also tog(1) is great.
        Fnoord 7y ago
        Hi, I clearly misunderstood your post. I implied you didn't know the licenses while I did not understand the "to bear" part of your post, at all. Furthermore, I am sorry if I came across as offensive. You make a good point in this post, clarifying your viewpoint. A viewpoint I can relate to.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
> usually based on security/code-correctness, But note that they also tend to consider usability to be part of security and correctness; if the tool is technically correct but nobody can use it without shooting their own foot, then the tool is bad. Hence things like signify - yes gpg or openssl(1) can do what it does, generally, but you'd struggle to use them and be sure that you'd done it right.

saxonww 7y ago

See the other comment with a link to lobste.rs, but I'm afraid this entire project exists to reimplement git as a BSD-licensed tool. My eyes were rolling pretty hard until I remembered that git was basically born out of a license disagreement with BitKeeper. Kudos to the OpenBSD folks (and/or this developer) for sticking to their principles.

compsciphd 7y ago
the bitkeeper license disagreement impacted how the tool was used. Git's license really only impacts how its developed.
enneff 7y ago
I don’t think that’s the goal. I think it’s more about a clear user experience for their developers, who used CVS for a very long time. While CVS is more rigid and limited than git, it has some benefits too. I see this tool, got, as marrying the benefits of both tools.
- MuffinFlavored 7y ago
  What are some of those benefits?
  - enneff 7y ago
    Unambiguous workflow, checkouts of only part of the tree, checkouts of specific files that are being worked on, and probably more that I can’t remember now since it’s been 20 years since I used CVS.

markphip 7y ago

In addition to the simplified CLI and the license, there is also the mention of using Unveil/Pledge throughout the code. That seems consistent with OpenBSD and probably is a big part of this. AFAIK, that is also something that would make the code fairly tied to OpenBSD at the moment at least. I've worked with stsp for a number of years on SVN. He is a thoughtful developer. I am not sure what got him started on this but I hope this comes together for him.