6 ms·

It truly is the greatest open source project of all time. I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. It doesn't really scale well a

It truly is the greatest open source project of all time. I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. It doesn't really scale well and definitely doesn't make contributing for newbies easier.

LkpPo 6y ago
30 years of contributions by email for the result that we know and you find that it is not a success? Shut up instead of talking nonsense.
- carstenhag 6y ago
  Bring up arguments, don't tell someone to shut up because you don't share their opinion. Also, if the entire world would think like "30 years it worked fine", there would be absolutely no technology improvements the past 30 years.
  - u801e 6y ago
    Does Github work on a dial up connection? Does it work when you don't have an internet connection? Improvements in technology can do everything that old technology can do and more. Not supporting use cases that old technology did isn't an improvement.
    - JasonFruit 6y ago
      You know, that's not really true. For road transportation, a car is a great improvement on a horse — but it can't take you home when you're too drunk to guide it. Some things are an improvement in general, but still a compromise. A stronger argument would explain why the better technology is a bad compromise for this application.
      - u801e 6y ago
        You're working off an assumption that Github is a better technology. Many people who make this argument do not have extensive experience using both technologies. The arguments I've seen presented comes down to the fact that people cannot figure out how to set up email clients or how to send patch sets via email. It's not around an actual comparison of how these technologies operate or what compromises one has to make to use email versus Github or vice-versa.
        JasonFruit 6y ago
        I see that argument about client setup too, but it's not the reason I don't prefer email, especially for something like kernel development. I think there are real disadvantages to the sort of queue management required of the maintainer using email that can be alleviated by a specialized tool. It also separates the communication history from the code history, which can sometimes lead to confusion about when a specific person became aware of a patch, which is often important. I'm usually against integrating too many functions, but I think GitHub does a good job of it. Basically, I prefer GitHub's approach. I'm not deeply experienced managing open source projects, though, so my opinion is not that valuable. My basic contention was with the idea that a technology can't be better unless it's an unmixed good.
otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> It doesn't really scale well Evidence? One million commits seems to indicate otherwise.
- bitcharmer 6y ago
  Have the Linux foundation ever tried anything else?
  - diegocg 6y ago
    I don't think the opinion of the Linux foundation matters. Linus likes mail and so does many other people so that's what they use. There is an article explaining why they refuse to use modern code review systems https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/ https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      > Linus likes mail and so does many other people And Stallman likes Lynx. Does it mean it's somehow the best tool for the job because a famous person likes it? Times change, tool evolve and most opensource projects catch up. There is no reason why Linux kernel project shouldn't adapt some of the quality-of-live improvements of modern day tooling.
mch82 6y ago
I’m curious if you use the Linux email list and archive? I’ve been thinking about how Linux and Wikipedia use an email list that is archived to a website. The archive can be browsed like an issue tracker. Many people spend their day in their email app. I wonder if maybe most projects aren’t using email correctly…
adwn 6y ago
> I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. What alternative do you suggest, and in what way is it better than email? > It doesn't really scale well [...] There are few things that scale better than email... > [...] doesn't make contributing for newbies easier. That's a good thing: If you haven't even mastered sending a plaintext email, I really wouldn't expect you to be able to constructively contribute to kernel development. Feel free to experiment with your local copy, though – it's open source after all.
- jorvi 6y ago
  I do think committing via Github would significantly lower the friction of contributing to the Linux kernel for a chunk of the developer population, and there might actually be a decent well of untapped potential there. Of course there will also be a lot of pull request noise, so I can't say if that tradeoff is ultimately worth it. Edit: well I guess OSS people are extremely hostile to even the discussion of more people contributing to the Linux kernel. My bad.
  - adwn 6y ago
    > committing via Github [...] there might actually be a decent well of untapped potential there I don't buy it. Contributing to the Linux kernel is inherently non-trivial, and I find it completely implausible that any non-negligible number of developers are able to do that while not knowing how to send a mail. Seriously, what's the scenario supposed to be here? "I've found a bug in low-level C code, and it's not a false positive, and I fixed and tested it, and I've looked up and followed the kernel coding guidelines, but I don't know how/am too lazy to send a patch per mail"?
    - u801e 6y ago
      > don't know how/am too lazy to send a patch per mail"? Arguably, it's even easier to do so with git format-patch and send-email commands, since they address the issue of MUAs mangling the patch before sending it to the mailing list.
  - 6y ago
gspr 6y ago
> I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. It doesn't really scale well Bullshit. What you really means is the second half of your comment: > and definitely doesn't make contributing for newbies easier. That's fair enough. I would guess that the scalability and workflow of the actual developers is more important.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  This push for every project to be as 'easy' as possible to contribute to is just weird to me. Like entering a room and immediately uplifting their entire productivity flow.
ziml77 5y ago
If I were contributing to Linux I would prefer some nicer methods of submitting patches, but email seems to be working out just fine for the project. Also I wonder if doing it by email creates a bit of quality filter by adding that little speed bump. It's not as simple to contribute as clicking "fork" and then "submit pull request", but also not something that discriminates since email is a system open to anyone.

LkpPo 6y ago

30 years of contributions by email for the result that we know and you find that it is not a success? Shut up instead of talking nonsense.

carstenhag 6y ago
Bring up arguments, don't tell someone to shut up because you don't share their opinion. Also, if the entire world would think like "30 years it worked fine", there would be absolutely no technology improvements the past 30 years.
- u801e 6y ago
  Does Github work on a dial up connection? Does it work when you don't have an internet connection? Improvements in technology can do everything that old technology can do and more. Not supporting use cases that old technology did isn't an improvement.
  - JasonFruit 6y ago
    You know, that's not really true. For road transportation, a car is a great improvement on a horse — but it can't take you home when you're too drunk to guide it. Some things are an improvement in general, but still a compromise. A stronger argument would explain why the better technology is a bad compromise for this application.
    - u801e 6y ago
      You're working off an assumption that Github is a better technology. Many people who make this argument do not have extensive experience using both technologies. The arguments I've seen presented comes down to the fact that people cannot figure out how to set up email clients or how to send patch sets via email. It's not around an actual comparison of how these technologies operate or what compromises one has to make to use email versus Github or vice-versa.
      - JasonFruit 6y ago
        I see that argument about client setup too, but it's not the reason I don't prefer email, especially for something like kernel development. I think there are real disadvantages to the sort of queue management required of the maintainer using email that can be alleviated by a specialized tool. It also separates the communication history from the code history, which can sometimes lead to confusion about when a specific person became aware of a patch, which is often important. I'm usually against integrating too many functions, but I think GitHub does a good job of it. Basically, I prefer GitHub's approach. I'm not deeply experienced managing open source projects, though, so my opinion is not that valuable. My basic contention was with the idea that a technology can't be better unless it's an unmixed good.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

> It doesn't really scale well Evidence? One million commits seems to indicate otherwise.

bitcharmer 6y ago
Have the Linux foundation ever tried anything else?
- diegocg 6y ago
  I don't think the opinion of the Linux foundation matters. Linus likes mail and so does many other people so that's what they use. There is an article explaining why they refuse to use modern code review systems https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/ https://lwn.net/Articles/702177/
  - bitcharmer 6y ago
    > Linus likes mail and so does many other people And Stallman likes Lynx. Does it mean it's somehow the best tool for the job because a famous person likes it? Times change, tool evolve and most opensource projects catch up. There is no reason why Linux kernel project shouldn't adapt some of the quality-of-live improvements of modern day tooling.

mch82 6y ago

I’m curious if you use the Linux email list and archive? I’ve been thinking about how Linux and Wikipedia use an email list that is archived to a website. The archive can be browsed like an issue tracker. Many people spend their day in their email app. I wonder if maybe most projects aren’t using email correctly…

adwn 6y ago

> I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. What alternative do you suggest, and in what way is it better than email? > It doesn't really scale well [...] There are few things that scale better than email... > [...] doesn't make contributing for newbies easier. That's a good thing: If you haven't even mastered sending a plaintext email, I really wouldn't expect you to be able to constructively contribute to kernel development. Feel free to experiment with your local copy, though – it's open source after all.

jorvi 6y ago
I do think committing via Github would significantly lower the friction of contributing to the Linux kernel for a chunk of the developer population, and there might actually be a decent well of untapped potential there. Of course there will also be a lot of pull request noise, so I can't say if that tradeoff is ultimately worth it. Edit: well I guess OSS people are extremely hostile to even the discussion of more people contributing to the Linux kernel. My bad.
- adwn 6y ago
  > committing via Github [...] there might actually be a decent well of untapped potential there I don't buy it. Contributing to the Linux kernel is inherently non-trivial, and I find it completely implausible that any non-negligible number of developers are able to do that while not knowing how to send a mail. Seriously, what's the scenario supposed to be here? "I've found a bug in low-level C code, and it's not a false positive, and I fixed and tested it, and I've looked up and followed the kernel coding guidelines, but I don't know how/am too lazy to send a patch per mail"?
  - u801e 6y ago
    > don't know how/am too lazy to send a patch per mail"? Arguably, it's even easier to do so with git format-patch and send-email commands, since they address the issue of MUAs mangling the patch before sending it to the mailing list.
- 6y ago

gspr 6y ago

> I just wish they moved away from email as the only way of contributing. It doesn't really scale well Bullshit. What you really means is the second half of your comment: > and definitely doesn't make contributing for newbies easier. That's fair enough. I would guess that the scalability and workflow of the actual developers is more important.

throwaway3699 6y ago
This push for every project to be as 'easy' as possible to contribute to is just weird to me. Like entering a room and immediately uplifting their entire productivity flow.

ziml77 5y ago

If I were contributing to Linux I would prefer some nicer methods of submitting patches, but email seems to be working out just fine for the project. Also I wonder if doing it by email creates a bit of quality filter by adding that little speed bump. It's not as simple to contribute as clicking "fork" and then "submit pull request", but also not something that discriminates since email is a system open to anyone.