How does this coverage hold up? It was a fun read from back in my highschool days, when I was still five years from trying Linux on my own AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz. It wasn’t until 2008 that I tried again and it stuck.
How does this coverage hold up? It was a fun read from back in my highschool days, when I was still five years from trying Linux on my own AMD Thunderbird 1Ghz. It wasn’t until 2008 that I tried again and it stuck.
Is this article (and the many sources I see confirming it) inaccurate then?
https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2020/08/25/linux_kernel_email/
I’m happy to be wrong if you have any evidence to refute what I’ve written.
Ps. I’m talking about the kernel.
Git and Email are not mutually exclusive. In order to collaborate with git, you need and only need a way to send your commits to others. Commits can be formatted as plain-text files and sent through emails. That is how git has been used by its author from literally the first release of it.
Thanks for the insight. I’ll edit my comment to point to yours.
Could you explain? I’m still stuck with a mind-block, can’t imagine how a git server can track changes to code with messages from email
A git server don’t need to know email to work, and it is not required to have a git server. Email in this workflow is an alternative to a PR: contributor submit a set of commits to the maintainer (or anyone interested). Then the maintainer is free to apply or merge the commits. After that the code can be pushed to any servers.
Ah, you mean email being used as a direct alternative to issue reports? I get it now, and TBH this makes intuitive sense. Thanks