On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:55:33PM +0000, Antonio Radici wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > As you know, the same thing happened with 1.6.2, when you first started > > incorporating NeoMutt. Your NeoMutt patches included half implemented > > features from 1.7.0 development, and was broken. > > I will be happy to understand what we are trying to achieve and mediate > between > the parts if possible. Is it about having a package that contains *only* the > mutt source code as you release it? It was never like this even before 1.6.*, > when we had extra patches on the top of mutt, what should I do with > patches/features which are (and were) expected on the top of mutt?
Starting with a vanilla mutt tarball and adding a set of patches, broken out by bug fix or feature, is fairly standard practice. It's easy to see what is changed, and I think is still fair to call mutt. If you take a vanilla mutt tarball and add a 30k+ line "blob patch" called "neomutt", I don't think it's fair to call that mutt anymore. If you don't even package a vanilla mutt tarball, but take the tarball from a completely different project, it most definitely is not mutt. I think it comes down to accountability. If you know the changes you are making, then there is something of a guarantee the result is a *Debian* packaged version of *Mutt*. Debian may have made some changes, but is vouching that this is essentially Mutt, plus changes they comprehend and can vouch for. By switching out the tarball to someone something generated by another project, or adding a ginormous "blob patch", Mutt can not and should not vouch for it. You are relying on the other project's reputation, not ours. It is then completely inappropriate for you to call it mutt. It's not mutt. It's not "mutt + neomutt". It's neomutt. > I don't believe that your work is lost, all your code ends up in > Debian (and derivatives) and yes there will be patches on the top of > it. Perhaps lost was the wrong word. The code may be mixed in, but as Mutt project maintainer, the package has nothing to do with my work anymore. The package you are calling "mutt" is not something I've helped create. Your version "1.8.3+blah" is not even remotely the code I decided should be in version "1.8.3". It's code the NeoMutt project made the decision on. Is it that hard to understand why calling it mutt upsets me? -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
