I don't want the walled garden — I don't care if its GitLab or GitHub or some other tool — as long as I can do stuff like rebase and squash easily and discuss t

I don't want the walled garden — I don't care if its GitLab or GitHub or some other tool — as long as I can do stuff like rebase and squash easily and discuss the patch without having to subscribe to a mailing-list, set up inbox filters, prepare the patch for emailing, participate until the patch is in, then not forget to unsubscribe. Comments about a patch are fleeting and should be gone after the patch lands — and should be treated as such. Any relevant comments will be in the source code. GitLab (and several others) can be self-hosted for free; and the walled garden (GitHub?) is tolerable enough. And as long as you keep your software development practices sensible (centred around git, not GitHub), there hardly is a wall really. > As far as local development is concerned, there's no reason you can't use all the git tools to manage your changes. Certainly possible, but I didn't manage to get git-svn working the last time I wanted to contribute to a SVN repo. In the end I just created a local git repo in-place and generated the patch with git format-patch.