On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:42:49PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: > On 11.06.2018, Bertram Scharpf wrote: > > > Last week I detected that there is an option doing partially > > what I suggested since 2017, yet eight years after my > > proposal. The patch still isn't as good as mine but knowing > > that the noble people that sent me away nine years ago > > weren't right makes me quite satified. > > How about stopping complaining and submitting your code? > "Here are friendly creatures, not at all evil" :-)
I don't think he's still listening... I would have loved a reference to the original message. When I searched the archives on his name it only turned up the current thread. My reaction was the same as Claus': use gpg to add yourself to the recipient list. I'll concede that might be different than adding the feature to mutt, in ways I can't think of, but while I was a regular encryption user I used that solution myself (technically still do, though it's much less relevant) and can't see how it isn't adequate. Every feature, every configuration variable, no matter how simple, has a cost--not just in terms of the work to add the code, but also in terms of making sure that future changes don't break existing features. The more such things your software has, the harder it is to make sure there are no bad interactions between future changes and existing features. Thus when there is an alternative that does not involve a Mutt code change, previous maintainers would tend to prefer that, over taking a patch. I do not think it is a correct statement that "the noble people that sent me away nine years ago weren't right..." Rather I think it is just that each time the maintenance of Mutt has changed hands, the new maintainer has been a bit less risk averse than the previous one, in the name of progress. In this I do not think there is a write or wrong, good or bad... There is only include or do not include. Both choices have merits (assuming the code is good), and both choices have costs, and the decision will affect different users differently. I certainly understand that it can be frustrating to make an improvement that you feel is necessary to a piece of software you are invested in. But ultimately, it's up to maintainer (perhaps with advice from the larger development commuity) to decide what costs will be accepted; it is primarily the maintainer who has to pay them. No one requesting a feature has a right to demand the maintainer's time, and when you are indignant about a patch you wrote not being included, that is what you are doing--both now, and in perpetuity. -- 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.
pgpJ57aNtNKeR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
