On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > As for the comment regarding the Mutt fork: in principle that's great, > but in practice IMO forks are bad: They divide the effort, and cause > problems potentially for both (or all) projects involved, trying to > track important changes between them. I don't like forks, and unless > there's a very very clear center of mass developing around one (and > there have been a few prominent examples in my lifetime), I don't ever > want to contribute to one. > I absolutly agree with you. But there is at least one serious reason for the fork: Current upstream lacks sense for maintenance.
This can be demonstrated by bug <http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3300> (mutt-1.5.20: mutt terminates with >=gpgme-1.2.0) which has been opened 4 years ago. It's pure bug which prevents from using gpgme encryption by mutt. It's easy to fix, it has attached correct patch, the patch applied virtualy by any distribution, yet the patch has been commited into development brach only 4 months ago and none mutt release has contained the fix yet. In other words, the mutt is 4 years affected and the burden of maintainance lies on downstream distributors. This is the only but serious problem I can see at mutt project. -- Petr
pgpKMDbug6SI4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
