On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 01:42:15PM +0200, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > Hi, > > interesting thread: thank you very much to all for the comments and > tips!
Seconded, this has been a great thread to read through. > For email based patch workflow one and two things are indispensable: a > mailbox and a MUA capable of piping a message to a command (git am); > this is the one and only obstacle for contrubutors who are accustomed to > less than functional MUAs. I think this is the biggest hurdle. A lot of folks are using gmail and its web based UI and it is just plain awful. I have made the switch to using neomutt (and isync + notmuch + mstmp) and it has made emails a joy to use and work with. > On the "cognitive overhead" for users like me who are able to (very) > seldom send some patch to projects, I find it much more straightforward > to just send a "git format-patch" generated file via email than to open > a web browser, log-in (or worst: register), fork... naah! This also has the nice side effect of not having to worry about if you should force push or not to maintain a clean commits the web ui, and in general I find the email flow to promote better commit hygiene. > On the general topic of "email vs. web (fork and PR) patch management" I > found this articles useful and interesting: One thing I would to this is Linus's rant on the github style workflow, as seen in a hard to follow list style UI: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17
