Question about gpg keys missing a uid

2013-04-09 Thread Kevin J. McCarthy
I'm working on ticket 3564. The reporter is unable to use a particular key for encrypting an email. The essence of the problem is that the key's primary uid record has an empty User-ID field. The "gpg --list-keys" command returns no uid records, and the pub record has an empty User-ID field too.

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread David Champion
* On 09 Apr 2013, Brendan Cully wrote: > 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 t

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Will Fiveash
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 09:54:32AM -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > 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 a

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Brendan Cully
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 o

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Petr Pisar
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 03:33:30PM +, Michael Elkins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:49:13AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > >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

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Michael Elkins
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:00:57AM -0500, David Champion wrote: In my opinion Karel Zak's efforts would better have been directed by working with "upstream" than by forking. He never made that effort, to my knowledge. Indeed I don't believe he's ever posted to this list. To be fair, mutt-kz i

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Michael Elkins
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:49:13AM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: As for the comment regarding the Mutt fork: in principle that's great, but in practice IMO forks are bad: They divide the effort, and cause problems potentially for both (or

Re: [Mutt] #3564: can't choose certain public keys for encryption even when specifying the keyID

2013-04-09 Thread Mutt
#3564: can't choose certain public keys for encryption even when specifying the keyID ---+-- Reporter: likkk | Owner: mutt-dev Type: defect| Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Component: mutt |Version: 1.

Re: [Mutt] #3564: can't choose certain public keys for encryption even when specifying the keyID

2013-04-09 Thread Mutt
#3564: can't choose certain public keys for encryption even when specifying the keyID ---+-- Reporter: likkk | Owner: mutt-dev Type: defect| Status: new Priority: critical | Milestone: Component: mutt |Version: 1.

Re: the mutt development vacuum

2013-04-09 Thread Fabian Groffen
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 > (mutt-1.5.20: mutt terminates with >=gpg