On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 09:31:53AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:28:26PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > >Obviously you don't need to listen to me > > I do listen to you, Derek. The whole buffer pool migration is a > result of your recurring prods, and I will continue to work on that, > likely through the next couple major releases.
:) [If I'm being honest, while that may be true, I don't actually remember what you're talking about...] [...] > It's easy to conclude that objections to the change are overly > paranoid or irrational, That's not quite what I'm saying (see below)... > but Mutt users in general *really* *care* about email. Of course, I realize that, I'm one of them. :) [...] > It's evident, to me, that this change is extremely distressing to at > least a subset of our users, who really care about having the > message in their Fcc box before it gets sent out, regardless of the > issues. I think that's a mischaracterization. Based on what people said when they explained *why* they objected to the change, I think it's actually the case that they just did not realize we accounted for their concerns when we designed this change, and that in fact they already can get exactly the end result they wanted from Fcc-first with the current behavior (their e-mail is fully recoverable, save the case of catastrophic system failure). I think there was not much opportunity for them to correct that misunderstanding until late in the thread when I posted my detailed, hopefully succinct explanation (and I also suspect at least some people who don't like this change never read the explanation). I think before you commit this, you should ask that anyone who still objects go read my explanation if they have not, and then explain how that does not cover their concerns. My suspicion is that after doing so, if there still are any objectors, their explanations will reveal that they still don't actually understand how this works, and that their understanding is the problem, not the actual behavior... Unless their objection is simply, "but I still want it to be written to Fcc first for no particluar justifiable reason," because we clearly decided that is not the right behavior. :) [I also think if they still don't see that, you, as maintainer, should know better and stick to the decision we made, but that is clearly a more controvercial judgement. =8^)] I think you could make the argument that this disruption is mutt-dev's fault for not making an effort to communicate this change--one we knew was contentious at the time we were discussing it--in advance to mutt-users, so that people could get used to the idea before it hit, or get involved in the discussion while it was happening, to their satisfaction. Perhaps we should do that more in the future... Regardless, I still maintain we made the right decision here and the alternative behavior provides nothing good that the current one does not, but does indeed detract, and should be avoided. I've said my piece. -- 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.
pgpiEY94NQfAo.pgp
Description: PGP signature