I don't quite understand the aim, or why it overlaps with OpenBSD. This is to provide a different, simplified CLI to git?
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.
(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..)
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.
"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
* 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.
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?
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?
Funny-because-confusing open source project names stopped being funny in the 90s.
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.
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.
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.
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.