`git send-email` may work well, but it's an extremely niche way to send email and therefore it puts a huge barrier in the way of contributing to a project for t

`git send-email` may work well, but it's an extremely niche way to send email and therefore it puts a huge barrier in the way of contributing to a project for the first time: is my "From" address correct, have I got SMTP configured correctly, etc etc. I just sent a patch to an open source project and attached it as a file using Google's mail client because as you say pasting it an email is a silly thing to do. But it ended up with some sort of non-text MIME encoding and therefore wasn't visible in HTML mailing list web pages, and I had to send a follow-up with it pasted into the email. So now there's a mess, and which one is the point of truth? I just want to contribute a patch, I don't want to think about low-level implementation details of email. The discussion you link to seems to be mostly a rant against using the Gihub UI to create commits. What the overwhelming majority of good software engineering teams do nowadays is create commits locally and then use some tool to provide a review interface for a branch (e.g. Gitlab, Github or the stuff used internally at bigger companies). Incidentally Linus links to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/w957vpu3PPU https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/w957vpu... which indicates that apparently Linux kernel development uses the "published branch" workflow, in addition to (?) the "email patches" workflow.