Derek Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > > It's not a bug but a feature that not everything that is possible is > > built-in but must/can be accomplished elsewhere. > > I have always, and still do find this argument to be um, less than > well thought out (to put it extremely mildly). Adding features does > not inherently add bloat;
Actually, it does. Every feature, and every line of code generally, incurs both a development cost, and maintenance costs. Every feature adds maintenance time for bug testing, developer documentation, end-user documentation, regression testing, developer support, end-user support, etc. It's a fairly significant burden, and it's the best damn reason for rejecting calls for "features" adding little or no new functionality not possible with the existing code, even when the people calling for it say "but it only adds 20 lines of code, that takes like ten minutes". I'm not referring only to mutt here, either. If your pet feature is minimal code, but the developers don't want to include it because what you're asking is already possible another way -- just maintain a local patch for it. Every time you want to upgrade, apply your patch to the fresh code -- voila. You get your feature, and the developers don't get the development, testing, and support overhead associated with it. Everyone wins. Yes, I've done exactly this myself. Charles -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPL'ed software available at: http://pyropus.ca/software/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------
