Re: patch submission process, was Re: [PATCH v6 06/16] merge_recursive: abort properly upon errors

From: Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 10, 2016, 07:30 UTC
Message-ID: <CANQwDwcL0etdZiiroAStwtpYurYEhJ7vcM52BUGUXh_ey+P9Kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160810005548.gee6ontd33ck5vej@x>

On 10 August 2016 at 02:55, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 06:28:00PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
>> Some of these problems I hope public-inbox (or something like
>> it) can fix and turn the tide towards email, again.
>
> This really seems like the dichotomy that drives people towards central
> services like GitHub or GitLab.  We need an alternative that doesn't
> involve email, or at the very least, doesn't require people to use email
> directly.  Half of the pain in the process comes from coaxing email
> clients that don't treat mail text as sacrosanct to leave it alone and
> not mangle it.  (Some of that would go away if we accepted attachments
> with inline disposition, but not all of it.  All of it would go away if
> the submission process just involved "git push" to an appropriate
> location.)

But submission is less important than review. And for review it is usually better (except gigantic series) to have patch text for review with the review. And threading. And (meta)-versioning of series. And place for proof-of-concept / weather-balon patches...

-- 
Jakub Narebski