4 ms·
> You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported wit
by tankenmate 5y ago
> You assume that there are not other tools to submit code and participate in discussion. That's obviously not true. Also the argument that "it is supported with git" is just a non-argument.
git was developed as a tool to support linux kernel development, why would you not support the right tool for the job? git was (and is) better than all the alternatives and is why kernel developers have stuck with it.
I guess if git offends you could just use patch files.
Or write something that is obviously so much better that people naturally switch to it.
- TeeMassive 5y agoI'm not even arguing against git, what are you talking about? I'm only pointing out how the Linux kernel development is the only project (except maybe some GNU projects) that still insists on using archaic stuff, like sending email with patches. And if fact I remember reading about a maintainer of a GNU project which I don't remember the name renting about how he's pretty much the only maintaining the project. There's also a project to get people up and running to contribute the kernel code base, most people stops at the email stuff. It's not like those things do not have tangible consequences. And so far I've never seen good counterarguments except snark and logical fallacies in the form of "it always been that way" and "just start your own" which only reinforces my point about toxic leaders.