On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 12:26:03AM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > While it is, after all, a mail client, I do think a lot of people who > > work with software or infrastructure are pretty used to GitHub and > > similar tools, and I'd argue that there are some advantages / benefits > > to at least supporting this approach along with other approaches.. > I'd say people that work with tools like mutt(1) are not so used to > github and similar tools. It's a very special subset from the generic > category "people that work with software". > > I'd hate to work with github, FWIW.
Again, I'm not trying to yuck anyone's yum (or beat a dead horse), and I'm fine with us supporting patches by mail. But GitHub / GitLab and its ilk (feel free to substitute your less corporate platform of choice here) are, essentially, table stakes these days, and I'd say a good chunk of the contributions we receive now come via GitLab. I think anyone who works in any kind of modern software / technology organization _or_ works with open source a lot, is pretty familiar with these sorts of tools. Being able to run (and enforce) CI checks, being able to iterate over changes (or even collaborate / suggest improvements or changes), etc, are all pretty useful. And, the issue tracking portion is useful as well - IMO, having "flea" (which now appears to just have people submit via GitLab) go back to posting to a mailing list would be pretty difficult in terms of tracking and scalability. And, at a simpler level, if someone wants to be able to propose a simple change (correcting a typo, say), this also makes it easy for someone to do that. /w
