> Just curious, can you elaborate why the ability to push gives you a tight
> feedback loop?
Notice how belabored the email-patch mechanism is for prospective
contributors without push access. Nature of the beast I'm afraid... there's
always at least one niggling fixup for the smallest patch submission, and for a
50-commit-behind-50-commit-ahead merge, there's going to be order of 10
fixups. The verbal back-and-forth required is prohibitively costly for a
largely inactive repo like emacs-chess.
The web-based "pull request" mechanism is much more sane than iterating emails
as it's always clear which of the author's iterations is latest, but that's a
Ah, I understood something else. I agree with what you say.
Question for maintainers: is it actually mandatory that all changes are submitted through patches on the ML? If we need to submit lot of patches, can we just point to an external repository on some branch?