333
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
333 points (97.7% liked)
Open Source
44260 readers
199 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
To be honest, I'm starting to drink the Sourcehut coolaid here. We have a distributed method of interacting with repositories: Email.
Don't get me wrong, the current user experience of email-based patches and discussion isn't great because it's too easy to send a badly formatted patch. But if we invested time in making email patches easier to use (e.g. sending them through a web ui for people who prefer github style PRs) then we could skip all the architectural pains of solutions like forgefed.
I don't know if email is a good solution. Having contributed to the linux kernel ( in 2010ish ) may have distorted my perception of the gitmail workflow but it doesn't seems very accesible and i can't possibly see a change allowing this to be usable by semi-technical users.
The change would be using Gitmail as the plumbing, and normalising the creation of user-friendly porcelain on top.
E.g. suppose there is a repo foo/bar hosted by a forgejo instance at myinstance.org/foo/bar. Sending an email to foo.bar@myinstance.org (or similar) could automatically create a PR and, conversely, opening a PR could send a patch series to the foo/bar mailing list.