Ask HN: Why Linux development happens on mailing list instead of Git?
Is this because of what isn't broken don't fix?
17 comments
Greg KH has talked about this on multiple occasions. The sheer number of developers contributing to the Linux kernel makes anything other than a plaintext email-based workflow impossible.
Instead of Git? Git is just a version control system & it doesn’t dictate the system for communication + review.
I assume they actually mean cloud services built around Git, like GitHub or GitLab.
If this was the case, it’s very important folks know such forges aren’t synonymous with the underlying tool. By all means you are free to use one, but Git (& other DVCSs) doesn’t require a cloud service. …And even if you do use one, it’s recommeneded to still have an email address (mailing list or maintainer’s) for patches so contributors aren’t required to create accounts with these dominantly proprietary services.
[deleted]
Assuming you mean GitLab/GitHub, it's mostly one reason: the number of trees and developers makes a single repository unworkable, and neither GitLab nor GitHub have tools to manage pull requests that have to be shared and reviewed across multiple repositories. With email you just Cc multiple mailing lists.
In addition, email is much easier to search and look at after the fact than a website. Especially with GitHub I have seen "these commits do not exist anywhere" errors way too often.
Related to this, email is easier to mirror. This causes a very problematic lock-in due to how much content is archived on the git forge that you've chosen.
In addition, email is much easier to search and look at after the fact than a website. Especially with GitHub I have seen "these commits do not exist anywhere" errors way too often.
Related to this, email is easier to mirror. This causes a very problematic lock-in due to how much content is archived on the git forge that you've chosen.
Linux kernel development happens on Git. In fact, Git was created for the Linux kernel. Maybe instead of Git you mean GitHub? I can't find a link now, but if I remember right there was a brief period when Linux kernel development had to move to GitHub. Maybe when kernel.org got hacked? Linus Torvalds didn't like the way that GitHub formatted merge commits [1] (from a later date, but I think it was the same issue).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjbtip559HcMG9VQLGPmkurh5...
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wjbtip559HcMG9VQLGPmkurh5...
Yeah, github Web UI tend to generate low quality commit message that's not up to the standard set by the kernel developers: no oneline short log, long lines, no signed-off line, etc. Linus simply refuses to let those kind of commits into the Kernel.
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546...
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546...
> Maybe instead of Git you mean GitHub
Without involving github at all, you can use git directly to push branches to a remote repository and then have it be merged by the maintainers there, which leads to a workflow that's pretty similar to the one you have with github.
Instead, Linux is being worked on by exporting the (git) patches and sharing them on a mailing list, effectively not using a significant feature of git and leading to a very different workflow than the one everyone else is using (github users and others alike), so I still find the question legitimate.
Without involving github at all, you can use git directly to push branches to a remote repository and then have it be merged by the maintainers there, which leads to a workflow that's pretty similar to the one you have with github.
Instead, Linux is being worked on by exporting the (git) patches and sharing them on a mailing list, effectively not using a significant feature of git and leading to a very different workflow than the one everyone else is using (github users and others alike), so I still find the question legitimate.
>> Instead, Linux is being worked on by exporting the (git) patches and sharing them on a mailing list
Once configured, you can send a series of patches to the mailing list with a single git command, and with just another command apply a series of patches from the mailing list. It's actually quite efficient.
Once configured, you can send a series of patches to the mailing list with a single git command, and with just another command apply a series of patches from the mailing list. It's actually quite efficient.
TIL; thanks
The kernel is certainly mirrored on GitHub[0], but it's not the centre of development.
[0] - https://github.com/torvalds/linux
[0] - https://github.com/torvalds/linux
I'm aware of that mirror. What I'm talking about in my comment is that there was a time when the development of the Linux kernel actually moved to GitHub, due to problems with the regular Linux kernel development infrastructure.
Don’t remember Linux, but PHP moved development to GitHub after a security incident: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/113838
[deleted]
Git and LKML predate GitHub, and the kernel was the reason git was born (Torvalds was unhappy with other devecentralized version control software).
Anyway, everything wondered where "Pull Requests" come from? Literally an E-Mail saying "please pull my branch ... at ....". Git has special tools to create and apply mails.
GitHub copied most of the LKML/kernel development flow and turned it I to a web UI. That's nice, but the text workflow is often faster and easier. And it works. And it is decentralized (a key requirement).
So yes. It is not broken. And GitHub would break the decentralized nature to some extent.
Anyway, everything wondered where "Pull Requests" come from? Literally an E-Mail saying "please pull my branch ... at ....". Git has special tools to create and apply mails.
GitHub copied most of the LKML/kernel development flow and turned it I to a web UI. That's nice, but the text workflow is often faster and easier. And it works. And it is decentralized (a key requirement).
So yes. It is not broken. And GitHub would break the decentralized nature to some extent.