On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 03:48:15PM -0500, Will Fiveash wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:13:36PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > On a different note, as a newcomer this reception is quite demotivating. > > Even a (polite) quick email rejecting the patch is better than dead > > silence. The development community doesn't appear especially vibrant. > > A more friendly and welcoming attitude surely wouldn't hurt. > > As a sometimes patch submitter I agree that the mutt patch approval > process seems arbitrary to me. At this point patch submittal seems like > putting a message in a bottle.
I couldn't agree more... this is the main reason I haven't contributed much more than I have, in the 14 or so years I've been using Mutt. I have submitted a patch to a bug someone (Vincent Lefebvre I believe) filed a while ago regarding Mutt botching the user's hostname in some edge cases, which as far as I know no one has ever looked at. I did get a couple of patches related to PGP encryption committed several years ago, but getting those included was like pulling teeth. The prudent thing to do would be to discuss a proposed change on the dev list, and discuss with maintainers the merits of the feature and approaches to implementation. However even that is somewhat likely to be met with silience, as I have seen from trying to do exactly that on one or two occasions. Why bother doing the work? Who has time to maintain patches from release to release? -- 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.
pgpxrJ3eWlZDK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
