I'm using GitHub more and more — ultimately because so many more developers are willing to submit patches there than elsewhere (presumably — at least — because

I'm using GitHub more and more — ultimately because so many more developers are willing to submit patches there than elsewhere (presumably — at least — because they already have a clue what they're doing, rather than having to work out how to submit something). In the end, what I've ended up doing is using Travis CI with its GitHub hook, which gives the whole suite of tests against each and every patch, as well as using external code review (mostly using Critic (https://github.com/jensl/critic https://github.com/jensl/critic), which supports explicitly rebasing branches, collapsing reviews into all pending commits, and so on, all gracefully — unlike GitHub's code review). While I'd like something better, the issues it throws up (not using the default code review system most obviously) as well as — as you say — the complexity of submitting a PR, are, in my opinion, outweighed by the extra contributions that are got by using something other developers are already comfortable with.