2 ms·
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 w
by 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 agoHi, 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.
- microcolonel 7y agoIt's alright, I am used to being misunderstood, so I choose not to be offended and misunderstand the misunderstander's misunderstandings. :- )