Sending .patch file over matrix attachments isn't the way to do software development.

@martijnbraam Don't do it then, ask for an email address to send the patch. Or don't accept it if it's for your and ask the sender to send it over email.

@captainepoch I'm getting an annoying amount of patches over matrix while there's a perfectly fine mailing list

@martijnbraam @captainepoch patches over matrix is just plain wrong. I would just reject them since if the author can't be bothered to email them then they clearly haven't invested more than a few seconds on the actual patch.

@qrsbrwn @martijnbraam I would do the same, to be honest, that's why each developer chooses a way for people to contribute to the project itself.

@martijnbraam Erm... forgive my ignorance, but why is sending a patch via email good and sending it via matrix bad?

@iooioio matrix storage isn't long term storage for patches, especially if it's dumped in a public room. email makes it a lot better, submitting it to a mailing list makes it actually neatly public and trackable.


git != Github/Gitlab etc, patch-based workflows over email have been around for much longer than those frontends and are preferred by many, and for good reason. :)

@unicorn I'm confused. Why would you need email to make a commit?

@iooioio Same question hits harder the other way around:
Why would you prefer needing an account on a closed, centralized platform over something decentralized, open and distributed like email?

@unicorn I'm not talking about GitHub. I'm trying to understand why the need for email if you're using git. I thought by using git you can get away from having to send patches around by mail. I mean isn't the repository there for sharing code? Why not use that?

@iooioio @unicorn Git repositories are stored on your machine, so to share the repository you need to make your machine accessible to the people you are sharing it with. You can do this by hosting a Gitea, Gitlab, Sourcehut, cgit, etc. server.

Or you can send people the code directly, either over email (which is built into the git application) or other mediums. Email is preferred for reasons described in this thread.

@robby @unicorn Oh ok. I get it now. Thanks for explaining.

Gotta try and wrap my head around this workflow. Never tried it.

@robby @unicorn Wait, I thought I get it, but seems I have more questions. ^^

Someone has gotta be hosting a git repo somewhere or else there is no shared history, no common code-base (either that, or you're not using git). Can't devs just commit to that repo?

And if you're just sending emails, rather than committing to a central repo, are you even using git?

I obviously still don't understand how this workflow actually... works.

@iooioio @unicorn usually only the project maintainer(s) have access to pushing commits to a hosted repository (ie Torvalds can push to, but I cannot). Giving all contributors access to commit directly to a repository can work for small projects (things like in-company development) but doesn’t scale well, since you need to trust all contributors not to screw things up.

Some Git hosting software came up with a solution for this, which is forking and pull requesting. These are not Git constructs, they are specific to the hosting services that use them.

The solution that existed before this is to restrict commit access to the project maintainers, and let people contribute to the project by emailing patches.

I think you should check out this website for more info:

@robby @unicorn Ah, I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I'll check out the link.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.