this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2026
54 points (98.2% liked)

Programming

25400 readers
349 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

... if you have a super janky patch file workflow.

If you are using Git like normal people do this can't happen.

[–] hallettj@leminal.space 19 points 2 days ago (4 children)

The Linux kernel development workflow, the purpose for which git was invented, makes use of emailed patches https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I haven't heard of any projects but Linux and Git itself using this.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sourcehut uses it, it's actually the only way to interact with repos hosted on it.

It definitely feels outdated, yet it's also how git is designed to work well with. Like git makes it really easy to re-write commit history, while also warning you not to force push re-written history to a public repo (Like e.g. a PR), that's because none of that is an issue with the email workflow, where each email is always an entirely isolated new commit.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 20 hours ago

I haven't heard of anyone using Soucehut. (I guess Soucehut itself counts though.)

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 points 18 hours ago

That's what patch was made for (see comment with the definition).

[–] Kissaki@programming.dev 15 points 2 days ago

… which arguably makes them not "normal people" (referring to the earlier comment).

Surely, most people use different, more integrated tooling.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah it's mad. Tbh I don't think GitHub PRs are the best workflow, but I absolutely know that git send-email is the worst. I tried to use it once to contribute to OpenSBI, which inexplicably also insists on it. Suffice it to say my patch was never merged...

[–] ElBarto@piefed.social 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why didn't your patch get merged?

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They wanted me to make some changes and with the normal workflow that's just git commit and git push. With git send-email I have no fucking idea and it got beyond the point where I had enough cared enough to fight the process.

[–] Tempy@programming.dev 3 points 22 hours ago

I would have thought that you fix it locally, git commit, and regenerate the patch set again. Maybe with optional squashing of commits so each patch set doesn't keep growing.

[–] ElBarto@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

Oh I see! Thanks. I thought that they deliberately rejected your patch. But it was more about the red tape getting in the way. Yeah, that sounds frustrating.