On 09-04-2013 07:49:13 +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > 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.
FWIW: I'd love to help with rolling Mutt releases (I have to do it for Gentoo anyway, currently maintaining a branch with backports of fixes only). That said, if there's interest from Mutt maintainers for that, feel free to contact me. Thanks for Mutt, Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
