On 15/08/25 3:44 am, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2025-08-15 03:08:20 +0530 (+0530), Nilesh Patra wrote: > [...] >> Opening PRs/MRs are typically how most of the git forges are used >> for contributions. >> >> Having salsa and allowing to open MRs and then saying that you >> will accept a patch only if you file a bug report via BTS with >> proper tags is somewhat an anti-pattern. > [...] > > Perhaps it's seen as an anti-pattern by people who regularly use > those sorts of forges. > > Sending patches to a mailing list is how the Linux kernel community > takes contributions. If I spent most of my time on Linux kernel > development I might think it somewhat of an anti-pattern that Debian > has a mailing list but package maintainers regularly "ignore" patch > series I E-mail to debian-devel. > > One community's anti-pattern is another community's workflow. You are likely missing the point here. We have both BTS (which has LKML patch like workflow) *and* salsa. And people do accept contributions via salsa. Kernel does not have both. (It has a repository on github but that merely acts as a mirror and they are very clear about it not being the place to send patches. That's besides the discussion here.)
The mail that I replied to said that the author will accept contributions on salsa only if they were contacted in private or via BTS for the patch. So using one media to send patch (BTS) before trying to use media to send patch (salsa) is what I am referring to as anti-pattern.
