Is OpenBSD seriously still using CVS for development?
Yeah, that's weird. It's pretty unorthodox to use a pharmacy chain for development.
To be fair, they have a pufferfish as a mascot, so there's bound to be some need for pharmaceuticals.
CVS is the authoritative repository of code, and they recommend to users to use that or reposync (built atop of CVS) to keep their system updated.
There is also a GitHub mirror , and got is an OpenBSD project, and I suspect a number of devs use one of those for local work until it's time to push the changes to the authoritative tree.
They can work on replacing that next
Yes, it is, because it does the job. Why exactly shouldn’t they?
For example, maybe branching is something you'd like to be able to do without it being a nightmare?
OpenBSD seems to be able to have branches (CURRENT and STABLE), and they seem to be able to manage them just fine.
Is OpenBSD seriously still using CVS for development?
Yeah, that's weird. It's pretty unorthodox to use a pharmacy chain for development.
To be fair, they have a pufferfish as a mascot, so there's bound to be some need for pharmaceuticals.
CVS is the authoritative repository of code, and they recommend to users to use that or reposync (built atop of CVS) to keep their system updated.
There is also a GitHub mirror , and got is an OpenBSD project, and I suspect a number of devs use one of those for local work until it's time to push the changes to the authoritative tree.
They can work on replacing that next
Yes, it is, because it does the job. Why exactly shouldn’t they?
For example, maybe branching is something you'd like to be able to do without it being a nightmare?
OpenBSD seems to be able to have branches (CURRENT and STABLE), and they seem to be able to manage them just fine.