If you click on the commit that talks about Zaurus removal, you'll see the CVS patch.
I do like the OpenBSD community and they were helpful when I was trying to install it onto a laptop, but why are they still using CVS? Surely the headaches of CVS would start to get to you after the decades.
Or the opposite: after 15+ years with one tool, you'll master it to a level that is very hard to give up. All the annoyances by now have workarounds, all the problems are accounted for, all the monitoring and hardening is in place (and for openbsd in particular: all the code has been audited and reviewed several times). Why lose all that in name of some abstract productivity gain that will likely be offset by years of pain getting up to speed with the new tool?
Would signed commits be a value add over CVS? You'd think the security conscious OpenBSD ecosystem would value a way to verify the integrity of the source tree for any given commit or tag or release. I have to admit I'm not an OpenBSD user so I have no idea if they have something similar for CVS these days?
Their tooling is built around CVS. Porting it to git would be a pain. Plus, git is bad at the "mono-repo" approach to development that the BSDs take; especially when pulling changes from other sources. CVS has facilities to make this easier. The same reasons that Arch Linux is on SVN (stand-alone "projects" like pacman or netctl are in git, but the ABS itself is in SVN).
So far git has only been requested by people who don't submit patches, those who have actually been interested haven't had any problems using CVS to send patches over the years.
I do like the OpenBSD community and they were helpful when I was trying to install it onto a laptop, but why are they still using CVS? Surely the headaches of CVS would start to get to you after the decades.