On 2024-02-01 18:28, Hans Meiser wrote:
Thank you for enlightening me and elaborating on all of these very important facts! Just to make sure: So "git" is considered part of the kernel? And the "git documentation" is considered part of the kernel, too?
Of course it isn't.
Shouldn't these topics be separated then into separate repositories, particularly the git documentation? For people like me, who are contributing to dozens of documentations on GitHub (and GitLab) … We don't focus on the kernel alone. We receive dozens of important technical, business and financially important e-mails from different sources day by day. So, people like me need some modern, common channels/tools for contributing. (If contribution is considered helpful and valuable by the kernel team at all.)
Could you, please, clarify what kind of git documentation are you referring to? Are you having git man pages in mind?
With todays platforms, issues can be created by e-mail and e-mails will be received with each issue update. It's even possible to upload patches via REST services. No web browser required. So this would keep mailing list users acquainted to their habit. Setting up a local (on-premise) GitLab or Azure DevOps server for long-term use should not be impossible. I'm running each of these myself. Once installed on-premise, the installation wouldn't be bound to any continuous support. All it needs is a provider for keeping the server machine running.
Quite frankly, I think you've missed some important points from the Konstantin's message. To sum it up a bit, not having continuous support is simply unacceptable for any kind of a long-term project.
