On 27/06/17 19:01, Alexandre Peyroux wrote:
> Certainly but on big projects that have many developers and a lot of PR,
> it loses its charm.
I respectfully disagree. Linux has received contributions from 642 (I
think that qualifies as "many") developers in 2017 alone using this
model. Sure, it's not shiny and Web 2.0 like GitHub, but it works. And
from a maintainer's point of view (this is versus merging in patches
which have been pushed to another host than github):
- I can view the patches without importing them or working out how to
navigate git web interface xyz (if there is a web interface).
- I can import the patches directly into my repo. No trying to find the
clone URL on a web interface (if the contributor hasn't sent me the
clone URL itself).
- I can comment on specific parts of the patches inline without having
to copy and paste fragments into an email, without signing up for an
account on the git host (if that's even possible) and commenting there
(again, if that's even possible).
Of course, these are all possible on github. But it's a proprietary and
centralised service. With the email process, I can do all of this
offline and using only free software.
Overall, this process has the advantage of minimising network
communication and variation in the process for performing the various
tasks that might be necessary.
Hoping but not expecting to have convinced you ;)
Linus
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
https://mailman.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
