On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 05:30:52PM -0400, Damien Riegel wrote: > The purpose of this pachset is to rewrite the way Mutt handles logging > when compiled with the debug mode.
Just to add a quick comment, I have noted this patch series and will get to it. However, from my point of view, rewriting the debug logging is very low priority. I don't much like to see massive changes like this without a good reason for it. (IMHO) It's a large amount of code to review and a low payoff. Additionally, although I don't much like to say things like this, I'm not too happy with your track record so far. You came to the list saying you wanted to work on refactoring the mailbox operations api. Yet, half-way through you complained to me that you were demotivated because no one was helping you, and you bailed out. At the very least, I would have hoped you would have addressed my comments in <20160616012943.gc24...@zaogao.lan> and would have finished up mx_open_mailbox_append() so we could remove calls to mx_get_ops() everywhere. And now, you write a very large patchset on something completely different and seem to expect me to be happy to look at it. I know we are all volunteers, and you can choose to work on what you want. But that does not obligate me to spend my time reviewing and committing it. If you want my time, show me that you deserve it. Follow through on what you say. Work on smallish things and build up trust before you start trying to rewrite everything. And lastly, please consider how you present yourself on the #mutt channel: talking trash about the code there just makes you sound immature (at least to me). -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
