On 2025-06-17 13:42:18 -0700 (-0700), Soren Stoutner wrote: [...]
I know that not all the people who prefer to use an email patch workflow believe what is being discussed above. Some prefer it because it fits their taste or is what they are used to.
[...]
Regarding working with patch submissions, I greatly prefer an MR. I almost never merge a request without requesting changes, or at least clarification. Having the ability to highlight specific lines of code and start a thread discussing them, and having several threads going at once for different parts of the code, each of which can independently be marked as completed, is a workflow that I would find difficult to replicate in email.
Not all forges are created equal, and there are code review systems which attempt to more closely replicate the LKML style submission and review workflow. I happen to find the forking-type GitHub PR/GitLab MR style workflows especially terrible, but the features you list are not exclusively a property of platforms implementing that kind of workflow.
Code review platforms which focus on polishing a series of commits as they should appear in the history of the target branch do exist, even fully free/libre open source and not even "open-core" for that matter. Sadly, the popularity of GitHub has eclipsed alternative workflows through a mindshare monopoly, so few communities are even aware of these options much less willing to explore their use.
-- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
