Yeah that part was mostly because people tend to think in terms of "pull request, therefore web" or "email, therefore messing around with weird configs and stuff". Tell someone that they can use Discord instead of email and they're probably like "you can do that?!".
It's the same as when people say "GitHub" when they mean "Git"; or when they ask for your GitHub[1] to read some code. It's understood what they're trying to say, but thinking that "GitHub" is the same as "Git" causes unnecessary bias in thoughts.
Using a different ecosystem as example, you can see this happening with ActivityPub implementations being biased towards Twitter-like usage thanks to Mastodon (where here ActivityPub would be equivalent to Git, and Mastodon equivalent to GitHub).
But thankfully there's people who know they shouldn't be conflated, and are slowly bringing us collaboration between Git repositories through ActivityPub, starting with a web implementation (because as you say it has the lower barrier to entry). This should open more doors to more creative "bridges" that integrate with this ActivityPub flow.
A more clear bias you see everywhere is that Git forges tend to just copy GitHub's flat URL structure of "username/reponame". It's rare to find something that does not have a flat structure like that (e.g. "username/hackernews/repo-for-that-thread") (yes I'm keeping "username" in the URL on purpose but it doesn't need to be there). Don't get me wrong, I like to organize things relatively flat most of the time, but I really appreciate a nested structure when I mirror thirdparty repositories (e.g. "example.com/mirrors/github.com/username/reponame").
So yeah, I like that from time to time we're getting projects like this that try to improve git collaboration and start from a point of view different than mimicking GitHub on everything.
[1]: I've noticed when people ask for repos to read code they tend to ask for a GitHub link, but it's understood that a link to some Codeberg/Gitea/cgit/stagit instance also works.
It's the same as when people say "GitHub" when they mean "Git"; or when they ask for your GitHub[1] to read some code. It's understood what they're trying to say, but thinking that "GitHub" is the same as "Git" causes unnecessary bias in thoughts.
Using a different ecosystem as example, you can see this happening with ActivityPub implementations being biased towards Twitter-like usage thanks to Mastodon (where here ActivityPub would be equivalent to Git, and Mastodon equivalent to GitHub).
But thankfully there's people who know they shouldn't be conflated, and are slowly bringing us collaboration between Git repositories through ActivityPub, starting with a web implementation (because as you say it has the lower barrier to entry). This should open more doors to more creative "bridges" that integrate with this ActivityPub flow.
A more clear bias you see everywhere is that Git forges tend to just copy GitHub's flat URL structure of "username/reponame". It's rare to find something that does not have a flat structure like that (e.g. "username/hackernews/repo-for-that-thread") (yes I'm keeping "username" in the URL on purpose but it doesn't need to be there). Don't get me wrong, I like to organize things relatively flat most of the time, but I really appreciate a nested structure when I mirror thirdparty repositories (e.g. "example.com/mirrors/github.com/username/reponame").
So yeah, I like that from time to time we're getting projects like this that try to improve git collaboration and start from a point of view different than mimicking GitHub on everything.
[1]: I've noticed when people ask for repos to read code they tend to ask for a GitHub link, but it's understood that a link to some Codeberg/Gitea/cgit/stagit instance also works.