On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 07:42:52PM -0800, David Champion wrote: > Whether to support patches by mail or GitLab/GitHub/whatever is a false > argument. There's no point having it in the abstract. If the eventual > maintainer(s) of mutt elect to accept patches by mail, then it's supported. > There's clear value in the platforms that GL, GH, srht, etc offer, > especially with CI/CD pipelines and hosting, and I think it's smart but not > exclusive or exclusionary to build on that. But it doesn't dictate whether > the maintainers allow emailed patches. You can have both. > > For myself ??? I've been as close as anyone to being a maintainer without > actually ever maintaining ??? I like and prefer email as a medium, but I use > GitLab for work, and I would argue for supporting both channels.
The difficulty comes with avoiding one or the other channel becoming a second class citizen. If the main development is done on platform foo, and email patches are also accepted^W tollerated^W not completely ignored, then you basically end up with the situation we have now.
