> > There are several reasons why we don't want to do this. We don't
want
> > to have to give a savannah account to everyone that submits patches.
> > We don't want to redistribute their patches from savannah while we
> > don't have copyright assignments or while the maintainers have not
> > judged them.
> All of the above applies for patches sent to our mailing lists, what
> is the difference?
This issue is not solely practical. It is also legal and
communicational. We must nt try to simplify that to black and white.
Between having an email on a mailing list, and having something
checked into our repositiry. there are similarities and differences.
One difference is that thr former is something we already do
sand the latter is not.
Another is that having some code or text in our repository
may seem different in implications -- to users or to courts.
So I stand by my conclusion
>From what I see, your conclusion is based on a fundamental
misunderstanding on how pull requests actually work.
A PR is not checked into any repository, and doesn't work any more
differently than sending a change via mail.
You're also going of an tangent, the initial objection was that one
would require an account (which isn't really true, and just a
technical matter), but also that we would be redistributing any
changes -- something we already do today if someone sends a bunch of
patches to our mailing lists.
A PR is just a set of changes, just like a patch. The only main
difference is a technical one on how you can apply it to a project
using either a web gui or some CLI tool.
> > We don't want the submission of patches take up the
> > savannah hackers' time.
> How exactly would patches submited to a GNU project take up a Savannah
> hackers time?
If they are submitted via Savannah, that use of Savannah will occasionally
require the savannah hackers to do something. Like any other use of
Savannah.
What would they require savannah hackers to do exactly?
