That's the beauty of email-based approaches. You can just clone, do your changes and `git send-email`. Done.
I think it would've been far easier to build a decent GUI around that flow, with some email integration + a patch preview tool, rather than adding activitypub, but oh well.
> I think it would've been far easier to build a decent GUI around that flow, with some email integration + a patch preview tool, rather than adding activitypub, but oh well.
Check out Sourcehut (https://sourcehut.org/). It uses a mailing list-based workflow so contributing code or bug reports is relatively effortless and doesn't require a Sourcehut account.
Email-based approaches have far more issues than just needing to create an account. I would much rather have to create another account than deal with git send-email ever again. It's awful.
doesn't need full fledged activitypub, just a common place to login
might just do it federated way of "here is my domain, here is DNS entry pointing to my identity server to talk with", that way it isn't even tied to single identity service, but a given user will need to use only single login for all of the servers.
I used to submit quite a few back in the day. How many projects are still actively maintained on Sourceforge? The last time I needed to go there was to get the GPC (General Polygon Clipper) library with the last modification in 2014.
Maybe I wasn't quite clear. As an open-source author, bug reports are what makes open-source feel like a job. This is because Github has created a sense of entitlement that an open-source project is supposed to take bug reports. That its authors are its 'maintainers' and are expected to fix them.
No. You are the person with an issue. You have all the means to fix the issue -- the source code has been shared with you. Now go ahead and fix your bug yourself. Then share the source code with your users as per its license.
Notice how I don't even care much for 'pull requests'. Another detrimental notion started with Github -- that the authors of an open-source project are expected to review change requests and merge them.
Guy, open-source licenses do not require you to share the derived code with upstream. They require you to share it with your users. I, as the original author, mostly don't care as the original code I wrote works for me.
Yes, sending fixes back upstream is a courtesy and a way to thank the original authors. However it is neither required, nor one must expect that the fixes will be accepted or even looked at at all.
