On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 08:50:51PM +0200, Holger Weiß wrote:
> * Derek Martin [2013-10-24 10:46]:
> > This hasn't been true for Mutt, at least historically. Some of the
> > people who submit patches infrequently have taken the time to review
> > other patches (myself included)...
>
> However, th
* Derek Martin [2013-10-24 10:46]:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:05:07PM +0200, Holger Weiß wrote:
> > > Of course, but they build only a minority and therefore if the others
> > > don't like their work, why not to revert the commit or rewrite the patch
> > > with prompting the original author that
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 01:11:29PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:53:33AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:45:05AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > And beyond that I think there needs to be a automated C-style checker to
> > > > enforc
changeset: 6345:3d5e23a66a1a
user: Michael Elkins
date: Thu Oct 24 09:55:36 2013 -0700
link: http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/3d5e23a66a1a
remove trailing period from documentation for $pgp_list_secring_command
diffs (12 lines):
diff -r b7fe6ebd07c0 -r 3d5e23a66a1a init.h
--- a/in
changeset: 6344:b7fe6ebd07c0
user: Michael Elkins
date: Thu Oct 24 09:24:58 2013 -0700
link: http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/b7fe6ebd07c0
remove trailing period from documentation for $pgp_list_pubring_command
diffs (12 lines):
diff -r 914e13a3694d -r b7fe6ebd07c0 init.h
--- a/in
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:42:52AM +0100, Andras Salamon wrote:
Which autoconf/automake versions are expected? I am using fairly
recent versions due to other projects needing them, and would like
to know which older versions to custom install. The build system
gives me a bunch of errors when ru
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:05:07PM +0200, Holger Weiß wrote:
> > Of course, but they build only a minority and therefore if the others
> > don't like their work, why not to revert the commit or rewrite the patch
> > with prompting the original author that the patch was really bad?
>
> This sounds
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013, Andras Salamon wrote:
> Which autoconf/automake versions are expected? I am using fairly
README:
If you got the mutt source code from the public Mercurial repository
(http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/), please read doc/devel-notes.txt to make
sure that you have a complete develo
* jpac...@redhat.com [2013-10-24 15:02]:
> Anyway, you sound like a usual mutt user, who prefers stability over
> new-features (this is the trade-off you've mentioned) and therefore you
> can stay calm - you'll get the same quality of stable releases like up
> until now (no changes in the stable r
Hi Holger,
> This sounds so awesome! No need for maintainers. The community will
> just magically take over all their work.
>
> Of course, in practice, it doesn't work this way. Occasional
> contributors add their favourite feature or fix a bug they stumbled
> over. That's it. They provide p
* [2013-10-24 10:33]:
> > i've been maintainer of sufficiently many projects to know that this
> > is not a universally true statement. a significant percentage of casual
> > contributors throws some crappy code at you and expects you to be
> > grateful for it, possibly flaming you down when you m
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:53:33AM +0200, Fredrik Gustafsson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:45:05AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > And beyond that I think there needs to be a automated C-style checker to
> > > enforce consistent C code formatting. The checker could be run via a
> > >
Which autoconf/automake versions are expected? I am using fairly
recent versions due to other projects needing them, and would like
to know which older versions to custom install. The build system
gives me a bunch of errors when running
autoreconf --install --include=m4
which seem potentially
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:45:05AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > And beyond that I think there needs to be a automated C-style checker to
> > enforce consistent C code formatting. The checker could be run via a
> > gate push hook.
>
> Why not. Could someone with change repo rights accompli
Hi Fredrik,
> If you need an automated tool to enforce formatting rules, doesn't that
> apply that your code review process is broken and you risc to slip in
> serious bugs? Shouldn't formatting rules be part of the ordinary code
> review process?
It depends. IMHO it should be, but if the project
Amazing! Thank you guys.
-- Jan Pacner
> While I'd like to see a more inclusive patch process (I have created
> several over the years that I'd like to see included in mutt) I think,
> as others have mentioned before, that a comprehensive regression test
> needs to be created and included in the mutt source tree with a make
> target to
> Mutt might not *any longer* be able to garner that kind of support.
> The number of people I know who use Mutt today has become A LOT
> smaller than the number of people I know who previously used Mutt.
> It's a small project which fills a particular niche that is becoming
> less and less interes
Hi Oswald,
>> In one of your emails you mentioned, there are most probably some paid
>> developers. Now you're writing "would need" as if there were none of
>> them right now. I'm not sure what is actually your point.
>>
> i made no such claim regarding mutt. you should re-read the relevant
> mail
19 matches
Mail list logo
