On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:29:06PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:41:50PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:16:46PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > > meanwhile, kevin has been actively hostile towards changes he didn't > > > deem "minimal enough". that's a reliable way to make sure the code > > > base is stale, rather than stable. > > > > I don't think that's quite a fair characterization either, > > > i just went through about three years of list activity (mid 2016 to mid > 2019), and have a somewhat solid recollection of recent activity, so i'm > *quite* confident about that characterization.
I can't speak for what's in Kevin's head, but I'm just suggesting that you may be mistaking the symptom for the disease... In other words, perhaps its not that the change isn't minimal that he's being "hostile" about (and TBH I can only really remember one time I thought Kevin was actually being hostile _at all_, which he and I actually discussed off list), but rather some unspoken other thing that just manifests that way. > mutt's design philosophy more or less boils down to "minimal features, > maximal configurability+extensibility", and it makes sense to be > conservative about it (within reason), especially when redundant features or > outright misfeatures are being proposed. I would phrase that differently, but I think it's fair. > but within that framework there is still a lot of room for different > *development* philosophies, and that's where mutt needs improvement. Maybe, but philosophy and practice often have big gaps. I wanted to call out in my previous message that in the past, it was often the case that patches were rejected NOT ONLY because they were considered inadequate quality, but because in addition, neither the author, nor anyone else, wanted to work on them further to improve the quality to the point where they would be considered acceptable. I believe the sidebar patch and the NNTP patch were both in that category--it was Kevin who finally reworked the former, along with some requisite underpinnings in Mutt, and finally included it. Some patches that provided useful functionality would have been good candidates for inclusion, but they weren't up to snuff, and no one was willing to put in the extra effort to get them there. It wasn't a matter of philiosophy, but of elbow grease. > > > also, don't let derek have the last word too often, because, > > > duh. > > > :-D > > > > I'll point out that [...] > > > dude, chill - if i was really serious about that, you'd be hearing from me > much more often. also, there would be no huge smiley above. ;-) Sure, I got that, but just because you're joking, doesn't mean you're not also serious. =8^) But FWIW I'm just saying I'm well aware I'm pretty conservative about accepting patches generally, but that that's in keeping with the original philosophy that drove Mutt's creation, both in general, and in the specific. I think that perspective is very valuable, since it led to us all having the generally excellent mail client we're discussing here, so I will share it. Passionately. :) Over the years I've watched all manner of software projects change things that were good, to bad, on a small scale or large, mostly because no one involved at the time remembered/understood why it was that way to begin with, and didn't realize what they were breaking. Well, I do. :) [Sometimes they just don't care, and there's nothing for that.] > you do however have a tendency to make an elephant out of a mole > hill when it comes to the investment cost of changes, completely > ignoring the opportunity cost of *not* doing them - and that is > symptomatic of the culture here. Obviously I disagree. I always consider what I think the benefit would be, as well as whether or not there is another way to achieve the same effect already (either within or without Mutt) that makes the feature superfluous. I just usually estimate the value is low. :) I may undervalue the benefit of a given feature--but that is highly subjective. -- 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.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
