Better tools for kernel developers

There's a big difference between "sending email" and "sending email in a way that doesn't corrupt patches". Also, Microsoft tools aren't the only one that struggle there, as evidenced by the MUA-specific hints in the git documentation.

> The process is thus:
> Step 1. Learn how to use git's mail capability, for which there are countless articles, wiki pages, tutorials, man pages, etc.

Sometimes people know how to use git's mail capability, use it fine for years, and then something outside of git breaks. For one example, see https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAP8UFD1hTc0dXWmiF6aW6=_7DhB8.... I too struggled with that same problem and remember spending *an entire day* attempting to figure out how to send my patches to git (and it wasn't the only time). I may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but I've had hundreds of patches accepted into git.git so if I'm struggling and can point to a thread where other git developers couldn't figure it out themselves and were asking the list, perhaps it's not as trivial as you make it seem.

> Step 2. There is no step 2, you have completed the process.

> It's extremely simple and easy.

I have to disagree. I still prefer the email process (see my three links on why I hate GitHub PRs and most gui code review tools in general[1]) and I think your point earlier in the thread that other projects should learn some good things from kernel development is spot on, but I certainly don't believe it's perfect or even above criticism.