On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:47:50AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, leo wrote:
> > I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes
> > into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept" [2].
>
> No, it's a fork. And n
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:03:22AM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> I agree that the naming + versioning is confusing but I've sorted that out
> since
> we switched .tar.gz from usptream a week ago, not +neomutt2017 is in the
> version, for example the latest version of mutt is 1.8.3+neomutt2017
The convention is to give a fork a new, different name.
The neomutt fork did so by calling their project "neomutt".
So far so good.
I'm surprised and disappointed to see that Debian as of now
has chosen to conflate the two projects and pollute the
namespace.
Renaming Debian's "mutt" to "neomut
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Here's the thing. Your tarball is not just Mutt 1.8.3 + some NeoMutt
> stuff. It includes most everything in my development (default) branch
> for 1.9.0 as of 20170609. Stuff that hasn't had time to bake, or that I
> feel I hav
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:55:33PM +, 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 fr
