Why kernel development still uses email (2016)

Re:Why kernel development still uses email (2016) by jasode on Saturday September 30, 2017 @02:53PM (#15374433)

>; what about developers who refuse to use the email-based process?

I guess I don't understand your question. In Linux, the email-as-the-workflow[1] has been agreed upon from Linux Torvald and his lieutenants all the way down.

I suppose that if a one refused to use email-based-workflow, they'd have to find a Linux kernel maintainer to be a champion for their proposed changes and submit them on their behalf. (Is this a common scenario? I don't know.)

If a rebel Linux kernel programmer insisted on staging changes for review in Gerritt/JIRA/github/etc, he's going to be isolated in an island because he's not part of the agreed-upon workflow: emails.

[1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email (2016) by wmf on Saturday September 30, 2017 @03:03PM (#15374490)

If Linus declared that everyone must use, say, Gitlab from now on, some Linux developers might leave. But developers who don't use email may never start working on Linux. That's why it cuts both ways: either option alienates some developers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email (2016) by walshemj on Saturday September 30, 2017 @08:00PM (#15375648)

A developer that does not use mail :-) that is very unlikely

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why kernel development still uses email (2016) by dlp211 on Saturday September 30, 2017 @09:07PM (#15375878)

A developer that does not use mail for code submission.

[ Parent | on HN ]