Besides the current drama, I'm glad someone of his stature agrees with and can call out the horrible processes and tooling involved in the kernel. Using email and a pile of hacks to mess around with patches just sounds nuts and makes it so much harder to understand or contribute. I don't think decentralized necessitates such a terrible workflow - you can run a local website with a distributed DB, distributed git forges exist, you can use federated chats instead of email, there has to be a better way than email.
I don’t think there is enough demonstrable benefit to sacrifice the ubiquity and flexibility of email for a newer solution, especially for existing maintainers who are probably very comfortable with the current workflow.
Harder to understand and contribute is a bad, but unless there is a proposal for a similarly flexible system that has minimal downsides and massive advantages, the preference of existing maintainers should dominate over potential future contributors. Especially factoring in how expensive of a migration it would be.
I can understand this mindset, but I also think this is how communities die. They go to great lengths to avoid inconveniencing existing members while neglecting to welcome new ones. In the short term, the better choice is always to favor the existing contributors right up until they start dropping out and there's no one left to replace them.
Linux is so ubiquitous & important that might never happen, maybe it will just become increasingly captured by corporate contributors who can at least build long lasting repos of knowledge and networks of apprenticeship to help onboard newbies. Open source in name only.
I really like the way sourcehut integrates mailing list patches with a good UI. I’d like to see that become more common in some of these “classic” open source projects.
Afaik Linus tried Github in the past, but had several significant complaints about it hiding information, messing with basic git operations, generating bad commit messages, etc. . So it is not as if they wouldn't use something better, there just isn't anything that has feature parity with a workflow they have been optimizing for decades.
That optimization includes things like email filters and email client customization that is individualized to longtime contributors, not to mention that it is just what Linus and others are used to. And the long time contributors have had years, or decades to incrementally set up their tools, and become familiar with the workflow. The problem is that new contributors and maintainers don't have that, and learning the workflow, and setting up tools so that the email based workflow is manageable is daunting and takes a lot of time.
I won't contest that there are advantages to the linux Kernel's workflow, but there are downsides too, and a major one is that it scares off potential contributors.
That said GitHub definitely is far from perfect as well, and has different strengths and weaknesses from email based flows. As do any other options.
But just because there isn't currently anything that is unilaterally better doesn't mean things can't be improved. There is clearly a problem with onboarding new developers to the linux workflow. That should be acknowledged, and a solution sought. That solution doesn't have to be switching to GitHub or similar. Maybe there just needs to be better documentation on how to set up the necessary tools, that is oriented towards developers used to the Github process. Maybe there needs to be better tooling. Maybe the mailing lists need to be organized better, or have the mailing list automatically add metadata in a standard, machine-readable format to emails. Etc.
I always thought it was a pretty blatant "vibe check" to filter out people who are so uncomfortable with software that they can't customize their environment to create an email workflow that works for them.
That sounds about right - the medium is the message. If you can't stand the clunky-but-working, decades-old, patch process, you probably won't stand the clunky-but-working decades-old code.
I'm grateful the kernel still supports MIPS, which means an old appliance of mine still works perfectly fine and is upgradable. I would be cery sad if someone were to rip-out support of an old MIPS arch, just because it's old and unwieldy
I've contributed to a couple of projects that use email based workflows. I can customize my environment, but it takes a lot of time, and I would rather do something else than figure out how to filter the firehose of a mailing list to the few emails I actually care about, or learn how to use a new email client that is slightly better and handling patches.
The first few times, it took me longer to figure out how to send a patch than it did to fix the bug I was writing a patch for.
I guess technically that’s true, but it cannot possibly take long to learn how to use `git format-patch`, and everyone should already know how to attach a file to an email. Even if you have to spend half an hour reading the entire output of `git format-patch --help`, is that really enough to prevent you from sending your first patch?
Ok, let me get this straight. You diagnosed a problem in the Linux kernel. You debugged it and figured out how to fix it. You edited the kernel source code, recompiled it, and tested your fix. After all that, if you have to read a man page you’ll just give up?
By that same token, there’s no reason for you to expect kernel developers to adopt a different way of working either. Their time is even more valuable than yours.
As someone who has never used mailing lists before (for software development), how much harder/less advantageous it is to migrate to an issues or thread-based approach, like with Github?
- Distributing patches via email is more scalable than web hosting. Even GitHub could not host the level of activity happening on the LKML mailing list
- Web hosting has a variety of access and legal problems when working with international teams; email crosses borders more easily
- Email is a decentralized and distributed system that prevents any single company from controlling a project's development infrastructure (release infrastructure is another story, but multiple companies will generally manage their own release process anyway)
