* On 29 Jan 2016, Will Yardley wrote: > > I wasn't familiar with mutt-kz, but ultimately, I think some of these > projects have helped in less direct ways. I didn't follow the (now > defunct, AFAICT) mutt-ng project much, but it seems to me as if it put > some much needed pressure in terms of making mutt development a little > more active (and maybe a little more accepting of adding new features).
That's true, it did. But Rocco Rutte (who began/directed mutt-ng) was in regular communication with the upstream mutt user and development bases, and ultimately merged a great deal of his effort back to mutt and became a core maintainer. This is a completely different picture from mutt-kz. Understand that I'm not arguing against forks, or against nonlinear development. Moving to Mercurial from CVS was of tremendous benefit to mutt's growth. I myself have multiple forks and patch queues that are not part of upstream mutt. But I participate in the central mutt development community; there's always consideration of merging back to mainline mutt; and I take that responsibility on myself. By contrast I don't have any idea of where mutt-kz is headed, but indicators aren't positive (cf. converting to another vcs and never posting here). -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
