>“But e-mail is so much better for discussion and patch review” it’s hard to differentiate sometimes between “better because I’m more familiar with it” and “bet

>“But e-mail is so much better for discussion and patch review” it’s hard to differentiate sometimes between “better because I’m more familiar with it” and “better because it has features I care about”. >Again, there is documentation out there to explain how to contribute but it doesn’t actually need to be this complicated. I'm not sure... email provides a nicer patch review system in many ways than any web-based patch review system. If it doesn't need to be this complicated, why haven't those other systems caught up? It's not clear to me... and at least for now, those features aren't replicable without email.