The path is not closed; it must be earned through trust. It has always been this way. Also, note that "pull requests" are a GitHub invention; the concept is not native to Git or most other SCM systems. Before, you would have to submit your patch by email. It would be reviewed by the "maintainer" (or BDFL), who would then accept or reject it. If your contributions are accepted several times, you may be able to earn the rank of "maintainer."

Returning to the topic at hand, the challenge for new developers is to earn trust. I bet there are ways to do so aside from the muddy swamp of GitHub's (AI) bazaar.

▲

creesch 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In this case they seem to be firmly closing the path though

> There will not be a separate process for submitting patches by other means. We do not want to create a shadow contribution system through issues, comments, email, or forks. External code can of course exist under the terms of the license, but we will not treat forks or patch dumps as a review queue for upstream Ladybird.

This does raise the question on how they are going to get new maintainers. The only thing I can think of is by active outreach to people contributing to adjacent projects that are still open. But that does not seem ideal to me as that will not yield people specifically interested and caring for the project you invite them to.

	▲	grebc 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They don’t even have an alpha product yet. This used to be called vaporware but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that something will come in the future and they’re just focusing on fixing their own crappy code.

▲

fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The amusing thing is that emailed patches and a listserv aren't actually all that different from github pull requests at the end of the day. In either case you're sending some code you wrote along to a group and asking them to look over it. The only real difference is the lack of a familiar web interface that's uniform across all projects and reduces friction to near zero, but emailing a patch hardly adds much friction in practice.

I think the primary difference is that it removes some of the incentive to status seek because there's no centralized network operator tracking contributions and displaying them on your profile for others to look at.

That said, the linked post explicitly says that Ladybird won't be accepting emailed patches, reviewing changes from downstream forks, or anything else. Hopefully that's not the case since entirely closing off the project would probably be an overreaction as well as jeopardize its future.

	▲	skydhash 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s really different because there’s no public signal between the email and the project itself. You can maybe search the log and see your patch, but there’s no central identity where you can brag about it. At most you can get a notice in a CONTRIBUTORS text file, or in the copyright header.