1. 23
  1.  

  2. 8

    Happy to see that kernel developers are staunchly defending their email-based workflow, and there is no real threat that GitHub will become the core development infrastructure.

    It’s strange to me that the article frames GitHub as an alternative to email that is better suited to “one-off” contributions. One of the problems with GitHub development is that you can’t contribute without a GitHub account, whereas email based workflows generally don’t require any subscription or account with the project to contribute. In that way email is actually better for one-off contributions.

    If new contributors have difficulty getting “set up” to submit patches in the right format, maybe it would be good to have a bot that monitors a newbie contributors mailing list, identifying problems and suggesting fixes for emails that don’t meet the project standards. Keeping it email-based seems like a much more realistic way to help newbies learn about the kernel development process, rather than giving them the false impression that Linux is a GitHub project.

    1. 6

      Show of hands: who doesn’t have a GitHub account for reasons other than ideological? Even if I refused to use GitHub for my own projects, I’d end up with one purely for contributing to projects. (And it’s still a better experience than email.) It’s not like making an account is a huge barrier either.

      That, and it’s not like GitHub is doing anything dastardly with your account either.

      1. 18

        Anyone who Github has banned or who they are legally forbidden from working with as an American company.

        1. 9

          I do have a GitHub account, but I use it to open issues.

          My problem with these changes is not that GitHub is good or bad, but rather an external company becomes a dependency.

          If gcc does something bad, no worries, we can fork it, but if GitHub does something bad, we cannot.

          If it matters that much, I would suggest to run a GitLab/gitea server.

          EDIT: P.S., I have friends who don’t have GitHub accounts, not beacuse of ideology, but beacuse GitHub does not allow them, they live in places like Iran. Also: sometimes Mother Russia blocks websites like GitHub :)

          1. 4

            That, and it’s not like GitHub is doing anything dastardly with your account either.

            Of course, Microsoft would never!

            1. 3

              I’ve been waiting for this supposed Microsoft intervention and haven’t seen it. Everything GH is doing now is what they’d have done when they were independent, good or bad.

              1. 3

                doing anything dastardly with your account either.

                Idc about the quality of the service GitHub provides. You said they aren’t doing anything bad with your account (which to me means personal data)

                This is right up Microsoft’s (or any big tech company’s) alley. You can claim they aren’t doing anything, but because it isn’t open source you are at their mercy.

                1. 1

                  Yeah most of the things that are bad about Github are equally bad regardless of whether or not they are a separate firm or owned by Microsoft.

              2. 2

                The dastardly thing that GitHub is doing is GitHub.

                1. 1

                  I can’t tell what you’re arguing. That GitHub actually is better than email for one-off contributions because it’s a better experience? Your other points seem to rest on that premise, which is clearly not agreed upon.

                2. 5

                  It’s strange to me that the article frames GitHub as an alternative to email that is better suited to “one-off” contributions. One of the problems with GitHub development is that you can’t contribute without a GitHub account, whereas email based workflows generally don’t require any subscription or account with the project to contribute. In that way email is actually better for one-off contributions.

                  Exactly. This is why the Sane software manifesto requires that it should be possible to contribute without having an account at particular service and without having signed a contract with particular third-party.

                  Dependency on centralized corporations like GitHub, Google etc. is Evil. Free software and internet needs rather more decentralization.

                  1. 4

                    I definitely also prefer mailing-list development. It makes much more sense when discussing changes iteratively, and the larger the change the more useful it becomes.

                    Technically you still need to subscribe to the mailing list, unless you’re one of the fellows that still knows about gmane. And it does require some decent email client, to both handle the traffic and to make patch submission/retrieval convenient. Since many devs nowadays just use web-based clients, they see mailing-list based development as an annoyance, and that’s why it gets such a bad rep. This is not exclusive to kernel development. @calvin is also right in saying that almost everyone now has a github account for either work of issue submission, you actually have less friction using github than to subscribe to a high-traffic mailing list.

                    It’s also true IMHO that the simplicity of github makes it easy to submit one-off patches, which is both a pro and a con. That’s fine for a typo fix, but it’s also too easy to see PRs with new functionalities, or bug fixes but with terrible code quality which the author has no intention to support beyond the initial submission: these are just a PITA for large projects, and raising the barrier to contribution does help weed them off.

                    Kernel dev is not supposed to be easy, so having a non-zero barrier to entry is beneficial IMHO.