> I loosely follow this discussion, but I'm curious: isn't a git branch
> workflow equally well supported? I did contribute a bit to Emacs, and
> what i did was push a feature branch and ask for it to be reviewed and
> merged. Not quite what Gitlab does, but closer than sending patches
> by
> email.

This might work. I'd be afraid of sending patches on my own that way
because I don't know an attitude here to "making developers to access
stuff on unknown sites". But if that's supported, I'd definitely use it.

Same here, if I can just point people at my fork or even better directly push to private branches on the Emacs repo, I would prefer this method compared to having to generate & send patches by email.

The code review aspect of doing so is not so great tho... the one thing the ML does right is the ability to inlinecomment the code submited, like what you can do in a PR on github/gitlab. I understand it'd still be possible but it then requires the code review guy to do the copy/pasting instead of the submitter.