Hello again,
I'd like to thank you everybody who read and participated in this
discussion. I really appreciate the changes which emerged in the
meantime and therefore I'm closing this discussion.
I'm certain the project will stay alive and vital even if the interest
for such "low-level" MUAs has
Hi there,
> no, actually, i was referring to the first part of my first sentence in
> that paragraph. of course there is a time perspective to it, but that's
> not the point.
Oh, I see now. The survey is not essential - the proposals themselves
are needed (e.g. with proper arguments based on some
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 03:18:21PM +0100, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> Hi Oswald,
> > and who makes *that* call? where do you draw the line? it doesn't appear
> > magically, somebody with the competence and guts (=> authority) has to
> > do it.
>
> If you're bold enough (devs/committers are :)), yo
Hi Oswald,
> and who makes *that* call? where do you draw the line? it doesn't appear
> magically, somebody with the competence and guts (=> authority) has to
> do it.
If you're bold enough (devs/committers are :)), you'll do it.
> ... but the simple fact is that there is nobody here
> who wants
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:20:36AM +0100, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > from my experience, people without maintainership ambitions simply adapt
> > to lower standards.
>
> Such people are fast to discover => you can ban them (it may/should have
> also a social face, not only sudden change of comm
Hi Oswald,
> from my experience, people without maintainership ambitions simply adapt
> to lower standards.
Such people are fast to discover => you can ban them (it may/should have
also a social face, not only sudden change of commit rights or alike) at
the very beginning => solved :).
> they co
Hi Gary,
you must be right. The only concern is about the very final slow-down of
patch adoption. In case of mutt, this slow-down was/is (?) really
counterproductive.
Kind regards
-- Jan Pacner
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:22:51AM +0100, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > try more context. hint: it's a response to what *you* wrote.
>
> Well, it seems we both have no idea if some of mutt devs are paid or
> not, so let's move to the next point :).
>
actually, i'm pretty confident that none are.
On 2013-11-04, jpacner wrote:
> Hi Holger,
>
> you're entirely right with my misuse of 'high-quality'. I should have
> quoted it. The submitter himself would be responsible for the quality.
> The point of this suggestion is that patches would be incorporated
> faster, but on the other hand they co
Hi Holger,
> try more context. hint: it's a response to what *you* wrote.
Well, it seems we both have no idea if some of mutt devs are paid or
not, so let's move to the next point :).
> obviously.
> i'll point out that we were talking about the motivation to polish
> patches.
> so how exactly ca
Hi Holger,
you're entirely right with my misuse of 'high-quality'. I should have
quoted it. The submitter himself would be responsible for the quality.
The point of this suggestion is that patches would be incorporated
faster, but on the other hand they could be much faster abandoned
(because the
* jpac...@redhat.com [2013-10-31 13:20]:
> > But the solution is not to give everyone commit access.
>
> Don't get me wrong, but a high-quality patch in conjunction with
> constructive track ticket seems enough for accepting the person as a
> commiter into (and only into) the quick-moving partly
Hi Holger,
> But the solution is not to give everyone
> commit access.
Don't get me wrong, but a high-quality patch in conjunction with
constructive track ticket seems enough for accepting the person as a
commiter into (and only into) the quick-moving partly stable branch.
It's imho quite far fro
Hi Holger,
> You suggest the project could be moved forward without
> maintainership, while I believe that strong maintainership is the only
> realistic option.
More accurately, I suggest the project could be moved forward by
_adding_ another tier, which would fill in the hole called "missing
pos
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:33:22AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> 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
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
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
* 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
> > >
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
> 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
uot;
> of course it is (*), and that's the whole point. you are asking them to
> concede that they are just in the way
Exactly.
> and to endorse whatever follows.
Not at all - therefore the *open* discussion about "the future of mutt"
- they can fully influence (prett
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 03:40:12PM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> Let me propose a fairly minor change in the development process. First,
> introduce a special branch in mercurial for a "user-developed" version
> of mutt. Commit rights for this branch would be given immediately
> (without an
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 09:54:06PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:29:49AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > On 10/07/2013 10:29 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> chasing behind a quick-moving branch with much lower quality standards is
> anything between deeply demot
hi,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:52:22AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> > chasing behind a quick-moving branch with much lower quality
> > standards is anything between deeply demotivating and unrealistic -
> > that's why you would need paid people to accomplish that feat.
>
> In one of your em
Hi Oswald,
> yes, there is a huge difference for the *users*, because as it stands,
> they are in fact faced with a whole forrest of branches which they need
> to merge by themselves. from the perspective of the developers it is the
> same - an external source of random patches.
Exactly.
> chasi
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:29:49AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 10:29 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > mutt already has that anything-goes branch: it's called trac. when
> > you make an actual hg branch of it, it will be a fork, and master
> > will be abandoned for good.
>
> W
Hi Oswald,
On 10/07/2013 10:29 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> the difference is that these branches are maintained by the same people,
> or at least that those maintaining the stable branch are *paid* to
> actively cherry-pick from the unstable branch.
> you proposed an open-for-all branch with v
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:56:13AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:19:11PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > I'm not going to imagine that because it's a requirement of
> > TCP/IP. All machines have a hostname.
>
> In my opinion `hostname` in the kernel is just a hint.
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:06:29PM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > MUA may choose to operate offline, so some hacks around libresolv
> > (like reading /etc/resolv.conf) are OK instead of just returning -1:
>
> NO, THEY ARE NOT. If
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 08:59:32AM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> >> Let me propose a fairly minor change in the development process.
> >>
> > you are proposing a fork on mutt's own infrastructure.
>
> Not at all. Look at many other projects. Even huge projects like Fedora
> ("not guaranteed t
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:19:11PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:01:05PM -0700,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > You have several hostnames or A records or
> > domain names or whatever. Then you have
> > `hostname`, which is configured in kernel, at
> > least in Linux (cat
>
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 02:15:02PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> The patch is ideal, where the ideal which it
> conforms to must be that it programmatically
> determines the domain of the machine correctly
> in all circumstances where that is possible, and
> NEVER produces a result which is invalid
Hi,
>> Let me propose a fairly minor change in the development process.
>>
> you are proposing a fork on mutt's own infrastructure.
Not at all. Look at many other projects. Even huge projects like Fedora
("not guaranteed to work in a production environment") and RHEL
("everything bundled is guara
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:30:09PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:01:20AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > If my system is not using DNS for local name resolution, then I
> > can still use /etc/network/interfaces (or whatever) scripts to
> > edit /etc/resolv.conf just for
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:01:05PM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> You have several hostnames or A records or domain names or whatever.
> Then you have `hostname`, which is configured in kernel, at least in
> Linux (cat /proc/sys/kernel/hostname), which may match some A
> record, or not. Or match
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 12:02:24PM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:20:15AM -0700,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Derek
> > Martin wrote:
> > > parsing /etc/resolv.conf directly can be wrong,
>
> No solution is ideal here.
I don'
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:20:15AM -0700,
Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> > parsing /etc/resolv.conf directly can be wrong,
No solution is ideal here.
You've added a lot of comments to trac ticket
3298. There's one problem, though:
> Not
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:30:09PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> > My system has several IP addresses and several
> > hostnames (depending on interface/network).
>
> Wrong, it has exactly one hostname, as does
> every TCP/IP-networked host. It may have
> several domain names corresponding to the
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:20:15AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> Yes, it doesn't break, it just returns wrong
> domain.
Let me be very clear here: This patch CAN NOT produce a domain which
is wrong, in the sense that any domain
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:20:15AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > It doesn't break anything, because if you don't
> > get the domain you expect,
>
> Yes, it doesn't break, it just returns wrong
> domain.
If you set it in your muttrc, it will ALWAYS be right. If you fix
your /etc/hosts misco
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:01:20AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> If my system is not using DNS for local name
> resolution, then I can still use
> /etc/network/interfaces (or whatever) scripts to
> edit /etc/resolv.conf just for m
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:01:20AM -0700,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek
> > Martin wrote:
> > On the other hand, your patch breaks some of
> > setups that do use DNS.
>
> It doesn't brea
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:01:20AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> > Even if the patch was complete garbage, the
> > point is there was never any discussion from the
> > devs as to WHY. It was completely ignored for
> > three and a
On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 11:01:20AM -0700, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> On the other hand, your patch breaks some of
> setups that do use DNS.
It doesn't break anything, because if you don't get the domain you
expect, you simply set it
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> Even if the patch was complete garbage, the
> point is there was never any discussion from the
> devs as to WHY. It was completely ignored for
> three and a half years.
Yes, ignoring your patch because of
technical/stylistic problems
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 07:10:07PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
>
> Yes I am but I need imap.would be better off starting over with python.what
> stops me every time is the need for a windows edit control.it shouldn't take
> more than 2 days effort for some one knowledge in rich edit controls
Yes I am but I need imap.would be better off starting over with python.what
stops me every time is the need for a windows edit control.it shouldn't take
more than 2 days effort for some one knowledge in rich edit controls.it is
taking me forever to climb this learning curve.
Sent from my Virgin
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:18:37AM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
>
> What I'm proposing is fairly radical and in order for it to become
> part of a bigger system, we would need to prove the concept. Proving
> the concept means trying it out in small such as part of a mutt
> reworking/re-factori
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:06:29PM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:16:19PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> > What, you want a counter example?
>
> Yes,
>
> > http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3298
>
> This one is a miss.
Sorry, you're wrong. Even if the patch was com
On 10/3/2013 6:49 PM, Will Fiveash wrote:
That is unfortunate for sure. Isn't Accessibility a general issue for
many disabled Unix/Linux users? The reason I ask is to pin down
whether it's mutt that needs Accessibility improvements or is it the
platform that mutt runs on.
Accessibility is an
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 07:53:11PM +0200, Petr
Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:22:00AM +0300,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > I use / ~b for searching in IMAP
> > folder. Newer IMAP versions support
> > server-side searching but AFAIK mutt doesn't
> > support this (XXX: one more wishlist
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:16:19PM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> What, you want a counter example?
Yes,
> http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/3298
This one is a miss.
> - Had a working patch 4 years ago.
I don't like some parts of your original patch
too, by the way. mutt is not an MTA but MUA
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 03:40:12PM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> Let me propose a fairly minor change in the development process.
>
you are proposing a fork on mutt's own infrastructure. i'm not quite
sure whether you are incredibly naive or incredibly sneaky. ;)
nope, what it takes to make a
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 11:21:40AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 02:46:07AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:22:00AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > > I use / ~b for searching in IMAP folder.
> >
> > Yeah, but what if you have 50 folders, and
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 05:38:48PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> On 10/3/2013 3:34 PM, Will Fiveash wrote:
> > Isn't there an existing MUA that already meets the needs of disabled
> >users?
>
> spend a week in my microphone and see just how current software royally
> f*&(#ds us crips over.
Th
On 10/3/2013 3:34 PM, Will Fiveash wrote:
My concern is that mutt works very well for me in its current state.
If the process of separating mutt as you describe has a regressive
impact on the current text based UI I would be very unhappy.
understood. I do not want to make you unhappy.
Isn'
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:18:29PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> the unix philosophy, like windows also fails the need of the disabled people
> (like me). OTOH, MH was surprisingly friendly to speech recognition. I've
> been thinking about how UI's fail the disabled for a few (20) years and ha
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:22:00AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:03:44AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> I use / ~b for searching in IMAP folder.
> Newer IMAP versions support server-side searching
> but AFAIK mutt doesn't support this (XXX: one more
> wishlist item).
On 10/3/2013 8:59 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
however, the unix philosophy (at least as actually lived by its strict
adherents) *totally* fails the requirements of modern end-user computing:
the unix philosophy, like windows also fails the need of the disabled
people (like me). OTOH, MH wa
Well,
if you don't mind, I would try to make a small intermediate aggregation
of the current topics discussed regarding the purpose of this discussion
(which is solving the declining vitality of the mutt project).
Except for many examples of technical stuff, patches and situations
where the proje
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:04:46PM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> The "old" design you talk about comes from UNIX
> concepts which power all the iThings, Androids and
> Kindles you most probably use and adore yourself.
>
of course somebody had to say that.
i call BullShit! on it.
the Unix Philos
> There is of course a wishlist -
> * scripting
I didn't even consider trying to fold in scripting to mutt, because
it seemed like it would be such a mammoth task, and such a significant change
for the project that it didn't seem like it would be either welcome
or easy.
I continue to use
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:01:55AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> Considering mutt's maturity in it's *intended* design, improvements and/or
> changes in direction greatly diminish one's expections of major changes
> are not and cannot be seen which would give the impression of a loss of
> "vita
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 02:46:07AM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:22:00AM +0300,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > I use / ~b for searching in IMAP folder.
>
> Yeah, but what if you have 50 folders, and you
> don't know which one the message you're looking
> for is in?
Usual
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 10:22:00AM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:03:44AM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> > In Mutt's context, the Unix philosophy works very well for things
> > like handling e-mail attachments, but it works much less well for
> > things that are inherent
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 11:03:44AM -0500, Derek
Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:04:46PM +0300,
> Alexander Gattin wrote:
> > The "old" design you talk about comes from UNIX
> > concepts which power all the iThings, Androids and
> > Kindles you most probably use and adore yourself.
...
>
(resending from the subscribed address)
On 2013-10-03, at 01:12 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> So, who's volunteering to do the release engineering for that?
>
> (I agree that it's time to ship *a* stable version; not sure whether it's
> worthwhile at least going through the assorted package
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:12:14PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
>
> The 1.6 release is supposedly waiting on some of those...
> and has been for a very long time now.
And honestly, given the number of vendors who are distributing 1.5.x,
and the number of users who are using it, I think 1.6 should
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:04:46PM +0300, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:12:14PM -0500, Derek
> Martin wrote:
> > and has been for a very long time now. And THAT
> > completely ignores the idea that Mutt's design
> > is over 15 years old, and its design philosophy
> > is much
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 01:28:03PM +0200, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
> by this email I'd like to open discussion about the future of the mutt
> project.
One thing I would like to point out here is that there IS some
semblance of a roadmap...
http://dev.mutt.org/trac/
I first would like to co
* On 02 Oct 2013, Alexander Gattin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:58:25AM -0500, David
> Champion wrote:
> > Lacking a regular contibutor who expresses
> > interest in joining the leadership team, it's
> > premature to discuss a handoff of project
> > leadership.
>
> That pretty much closes
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 03:58:25AM -0500, David
Champion wrote:
> Lacking a regular contibutor who expresses
> interest in joining the leadership team, it's
> premature to discuss a handoff of project
> leadership.
That pretty much closes the discussion ATM.
--
With best regards,
xrgtn
signatu
important feature,
especially when served with header_cache and
message_cachedir. Fetchmail is good for POP but
for IMAP there are better options IMHO.
We all have different opinions regarding mutt
development, it seems, so I don't see any sense in
discussing here "the future of mutt" and
* On 30 Sep 2013, jpac...@redhat.com wrote:
>
> by this email I'd like to open discussion about the future of the mutt
> project. From year to year we can witness a small, but certain decline
> in the overall mutt project vitality. This is in direct contrast with
> the user-base which is (accordi
Eric,
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 12:29:23AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Derek Martin :
> > This is nonsense. There have been many discussions on this list
> > about possible improvements, covering a wide range of functional and
> > UI areas. The 1.6 release is supposedly waiting on some of thos
Derek Martin :
> This is nonsense. There have been many discussions on this list
> about possible improvements, covering a wide range of functional and
> UI areas. The 1.6 release is supposedly waiting on some of those...
> and has been for a very long time now. And THAT completely ignores
> the
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:01:55AM -0400, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * jpac...@redhat.com [09-30-13 07:29]:
> > by this email I'd like to open discussion about the future of the mutt
> > project. From year to year we can witness a small, but certain decline
> > in the overall mutt project vitality
* jpac...@redhat.com [09-30-13 07:29]:
> by this email I'd like to open discussion about the future of the mutt
> project. From year to year we can witness a small, but certain decline
> in the overall mutt project vitality. This is in direct contrast with
> the user-base which is (according to
Hello everybody,
by this email I'd like to open discussion about the future of the mutt
project. From year to year we can witness a small, but certain decline
in the overall mutt project vitality. This is in direct contrast with
the user-base which is (according to tickets and mailing lists) both
86 matches
Mail list logo
