On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 02:43:15PM +0100, Richard Russon wrote: > The usual pattern is: > developer writes some code > it doesn't meet the mutt-dev standards (for whatever reason) > developer gives up > time passes > variants of the patch turn up (because people like the feature) > distros start bundling different versions the patch > > Mutt should be doing everything it can to bring developers together. > NeoMutt's lower bar for entry should help.
Yes, with a caveat. I myself have started several "Mutt is stagnating" threads over the years, so I'm sympathetic to this. But it's also still important that Mutt not lose sight of its raison d'etre: to be the mail client that sucks less. [Sorry Vincent, I can't type the French accents. ;-)] That means, in part, that when new code is written, it be evaluated with an eye toward quality, and that code that isn't up to par be rejected. Mutt is also already extremely featureful; part of the job of the maintainer(s) is to evaluate how any given proposed feature fits in with the current code base, whether any additional complexity is worth what the feature provides, and whether new features or changes in functionality (or their implementations) compromise the integrity or security of Mutt. Whatever criticisms of the Mutt dev process you might have, it's hard to argue that any of the previous maintainers failed to take quality into consideration; and this focus does, necessarily I think, lead to a more conservative development process. Kevin has newly taken over that role, and has been doing a fine job, but let's also try to help him acheive those goals by not asking to have every kitchen sink patch committed by end-of-business tomrrow. =8^) [I know you're not--I'm being fecetious.] While we may strive to move forward, at the same time we all need to be dilligent to make sure Mutt stays the powerful, reliable, managable (and maintainable) mail client it has always been. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
pgpsJM9DVBYzV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
