>How do you deal with continuous integrations and making sure things like CLAs are signed? How does issue tracking integrate there?

The same way that you do that on github: many mailing lists can send webhooks on email received, and then it's up to your CI and CLA bot to respond to that email accordingly.

> You mean you don't create a fork by cloning the repository onto your PC when using e-mail?

I mean that you must open up a browser, open the main project repository, click fork, and wait for a minute for the forking to complete so that I would be able to push to my github fork now. I don't need to waste my time doing such stuff when using email.

> Or that somehow `git send-email` is harder than `git push`?

`git send-email` is just as easy as `git push` and I see additional benefit in it integrates you message to maintainers too, not having to write it separately

> I'd gladly remove `send-email` from git

Good luck trying to do that, Linux, arguably the biggest and the most important project out there, the one for which git was originally created, still happily lives using email and mailing lists.

>for it's negative effects on FOSS, it's clearly making people think it's somehow nice to use or start using.

Excuse me, WTF? How is it negative exactly? It lets FOSS be vendor independent, it allows big projects to exist. Linux, PostgreSQL, *BSD, even git itself, uses email to collaborate. Clearly there is no negative impact as these projects are so successful.

> All of them are absolutely terrible to use.

My experience is quite the contrary. While the interfaces aren't necessarily the most beautiful thing you've seen, they have all the most common actions easily reachable. Sending bug reports to Mozzila, PostgreSQL, etc. was a good experience for me.

> The sooner all FOSS migrates to Gitlab the better.

Have you've even read the first comment of this thread? It is asking about distributed git. All of the FOSS migrating to Gitlab is a highly negative thing in my opinion. Firstly it doesn't leave space for using email, which a lot of big projects have accustomed to using, and migrating to another workflow would be a massive burden, and could discourage old contributors from contributing. Secondly, that puts all of the FOSS projects in one basket, making them more vulnerable for intervention. If <nation> wanted to deny access of FOSS projects for <another-nation>, it would just have to exercise power on Gitlab, which could fly under the radar of mainstream media, while if it was hosted on plethora of platforms <nation> would have to exercise power on all of those, which definitely couldn't go unnoticed.

Gitlab and github issue tracking isn't even that good. Many bigger projects use many states of bugs, like confirmed, in_progress, duplicate, etc. Github and gitlab just have open/closed, and that isn't good. If you want to find some bug to work on, it is a lot easier to filter on confirmed, than to look through the open bugs to find one that is confirmed, isn't being worked on by someone else, and isn't a duplicate of a bug that someone else is working on. All that Github and Gitlab bug tracker has is pretty UI, which doesn't mean good UX.

>we're stifling FOSS' progress by using tools majorly out-of-date.

The fact that those tools were created a long time ago, doesn't mean that they just stayed in those years. Tools are constantly being worked on. Linux was started in 1990s. Is it majorly out-of-date? I wouldn't say so. If it is, why are we all using it?