On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:41:50PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 03:16:46PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
meanwhile, kevin has been actively hostile towards changes he didn't
deem "minimal enough". that's a reliable way to make sure the code
base is stale, rather than stable.
I don't think that's quite a fair characterization either,
i just went through about three years of list activity (mid 2016 to mid
2019), and have a somewhat solid recollection of recent activity, so i'm
*quite* confident about that characterization.
- don't be so conservative about the types of changes you accept, in
particular when it comes to internals.
[...] In large part its conservatism is WHY it sucked less [...]
mutt's design philosophy more or less boils down to "minimal features,
maximal configurability+extensibility", and it makes sense to be
conservative about it (within reason), especially when redundant
features or outright misfeatures are being proposed.
but within that framework there is still a lot of room for different
*development* philosophies, and that's where mutt needs improvement.
also, don't let derek have the last word too often, because, duh.
:-D
I'll point out that [...]
dude, chill - if i was really serious about that, you'd be hearing from
me much more often. also, there would be no huge smiley above. ;-)
you do however have a tendency to make an elephant out of a mole hill
when it comes to the investment cost of changes, completely ignoring the
opportunity cost of *not* doing them - and that is symptomatic of the
culture here.
greetings
