On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 09:29:20AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > 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? > It can sound rude here, but Karel Zak maintains a fork <http://karelzak.blogspot.cz/2012/04/mutt-fork.html>.
-- Petr
pgpFuR5fdC0C6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
