As of today I can send you a pull request through HN, even. Hey, I fixed some typos, you can pull from `https://example.com/repo.git`, branch `typos`. Chee

As of today I can send you a pull request through HN, even. Hey, I fixed some typos, you can pull from `https://example.com/repo.git`, branch `typos`. Cheers! There, done. I just made a pull request. Now you can just: git pull https://example.com/repo.git typos Sure, a web-based interface for code review (like what GitHub has) is a nice addition on top of pull requests, especially for back and forth conversation[1]. The code review part doesn't necessarily need to be web stuff. It also doesn't need to be email patches, because just because it's not web doesn't mean it has to be email. Hopefully these ActivityPub initiatives make it more obvious that this is a false dichotomy, and that pull requests and code review are different things. Like, for example, maybe my repo is hosted in a cgit instance, but I can review (and respond to) your suggested changes from nvim, and you receive the comments through ActivityPub. Just because I don't publicly display code review comments on my website doesn't mean you can't use Forgejo on your side as usual. [1]: Though you can leave inline comments in your repo's branch, and I can read them with `git diff` on my side, fix them, do another push, and then you'll see the fixes when you do your next pull.