4 ms·

I’m pretty sure that’s intentional. Your OS kernel is NOT a code base where you want a lot of people making “drive-by PRs”

• Retr0id 2y ago
  It is intentional, and I think it's a mistake. Plenty of changes aren't suitable for drive-by contributions, but many are.
  • epcoa 2y ago
    I’ve done dozens of what might be considered “drive by PRs” over the decades (hardly a regular). It’s attaching a patch to an email after finding the correct list (that might be the hardest part). It’s hard to accept the process itself is much more onerous than a forge. Regardless of venue, in every high profile project there are particular idioms and procedures that must be learned and followed. Few outside of side projects truly want totally "drive-by" contributions with no regards to the project standards, even if they're hosted on github. On the other hand the lk process might be less marketed - but there have been sites like kernelnewbies for decades as well. Where the process really looks different to me is for large, extensive work, not the drive bys. Whether it should change is another debate, but I think the intentionality of gatekeeping narrative via process is oversold.
• Palomides 2y ago
  a big problem is that it prevents people from ever starting to work on the kernel with a such a hostile pipeline, it's no surprise there aren't more kernel devs
  • Palomides 2y ago
    I know like a dozen very competent people who have been turned off from working on linux at various stages of trying to get code in, largely due to process (and to some degree culture) reasons