Fannys <email@fannys.me> writes:
But again, even if this is a great option for you, it might be a really bad
option for some other people. Everybody does not have the time to spend
learning emacs, or other specific tool. It's ok if the workflow suggests that
but it's not great if we have no other alternative.
It's not accessible and imposes a barrier in some people.
Yeah agreed. And we should be consious of that.
Ironically by mandating Emacs and Email we force people to use specific
tools while at the same time even though the same people will complain(!)
against vendor lock-in
like github.
We don’t *mandate* the use of Emacs. It’s just a common recommendation
because it works so well with text and is trivially extensible, so it’s
a common target for helper tools. Surely we also wouldn’t call a
recommendation to use a shell script “vendor lock-in” just because it
needs Bash.
Emacs works well with text, and text is all that’s needed in a
patch-based workflow, which is in fact vendor agnostic.
Of course this doesn’t mean that it is as accessible as we’d want.