Re: irt: Re: Core statement on version control systems

[Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 19:46, David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:04:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>  > > That's the git(hub) "pull request" issue.
>  >
>  > Right, the "pull request" issue.  Where github serves as an example of
>  > how to not do things.
>
> Sing it!

Greg is right.  My grype is with github.  gitlab, for instance, feels
better but I don't use it everyday.  bitbucket comes with baggage.

Submission should come in via pull-requests and not a series of
patches to a mailing list.  While both methods can be met with
crickets (i.e., ignored) having the submission in a tracking system
makes it harder to pretend there isn't a problem.

> It's a terrible model for development, and not even a good way to send
> patches upstream to random projects.
>
> Also, realistically, someone who can't manage to figure out a
> different patch submission mechanism probably isn't going to be a very
> successful contributor.
>
>
> That said, we should have some kind of web-based patch submission
> thing because that _is_ what the kids expect. Realistically gnats is
> useless for this, and sending patches to mailing lists by email has
> always been hit or miss.
>
> I remember at one point Joerg was talking about Phabricator except
> that it was php. No idea what such tools are currently available.

Are there resources for that?