On Monday, 08 April 2013 at 16:21, Michael Elkins wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 03:04:16PM +0100, Christian Ebert wrote: > >Or, as Mutt is maintained in a Mercurial repo, to bitbucket. > > Brendan mirrors the main repository to bitbucket: > > https://bitbucket.org/mutt/mutt
FWIW, my opinion of bitbucket/github is that they're great, but they're not going to make a huge difference to mutt. They lower the barrier to entry and encourage drive-by patches, which are great when a project is just starting but IMHO not as useful for a mature, conservative project like mutt, where the problem is not so much getting patches as carefully reviewing them and providing detailed feedback to the author. I think Derek is right, we should be handing out the commit bit a little more freely. I think DGC proposed once we use something like Mercurial's crew repository as a staging area for patches that we think are good but need review before applying to the main repo. This might make it easier for new committers. The other big thing that mutt gets blocked on is bug fixes and the effort it takes to avoid regressions. This takes a lot more time than it should because we don't have any kind of test suite. Rocco once started working on one at https://bitbucket.org/pdmef/mutt-testdrive but I don't know how far he was able to get with it. This would be a great project for someone with a bit of time, with I think very large benefits for everyone: applying patches would be safer, and reviewing them would take less work, so we'd be able to get a lot more through our limited maintenance bandwidth.
