4 ms·
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 technologie
by u801e 5y 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 5y agoI 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.