> > 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
> separate issue.
>

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?

Kind regards,
Philippe