Fannys <em...@fannys.me> writes:
>> But again, even if this is a great option for you, it might be a really bad >> option for some other people. Everybody does not have the time to spend >> learning emacs, or other specific tool. It's ok if the workflow suggests that >> but it's not great if we have no other alternative. >> >> It's not accessible and imposes a barrier in some people. > > Yeah agreed. And we should be consious of that. > Ironically by mandating Emacs and Email we force people to use specific > tools while at the same time even though the same people will complain(!) > against vendor lock-in > like github. We don’t *mandate* the use of Emacs. It’s just a common recommendation because it works so well with text and is trivially extensible, so it’s a common target for helper tools. Surely we also wouldn’t call a recommendation to use a shell script “vendor lock-in” just because it needs Bash. Emacs works well with text, and text is all that’s needed in a patch-based workflow, which is in fact vendor agnostic. Of course this doesn’t mean that it is as accessible as we’d want. -- Ricardo
