1:02 a.m.
Howdy!
After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've ended here.
Tons of questions:
- What's the state of the fork?
- Is there any plans of doing a release?
- What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've moved
to git (volunteering myself)
- What to do with all those open pull requests?
- Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
Thanks!
--
qmx
6:39 a.m.
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:02:31AM -0300, Douglas Campos wrote:
After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've
ended here.
Tons of questions:
- What's the state of the fork?
Active (although I was too busy in last months to do any real work).
- Is there any plans of doing a release?
Good question. I'd like to update my Fedora packages with mutt-kz
this week. Not sure about a real release.
- What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've
moved
to git (volunteering myself)
Well, we still merge from the official mutt upstream -- so it would
be probably good to keep the code "compatible" with the upstream.
- What to do with all those open pull requests?
I have closed almost all (sorry for the delay).
- Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
Not sure, it would be probably better to keep it compatible.
Note that you don't want to install mutt to test it. I use it
directly from git repo, just "make" and "./mutt" (or ./mutt -F
~/.muttrc-kz etc.)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak(a)redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
8:55 p.m.
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> - Is there any plans of doing a release?
Good question. I'd like to update my Fedora packages with mutt-kz
this week. Not sure about a real release.
Having at least tags on the git repo
would help to track changes - wdyt?
> - What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since
we've moved
> to git (volunteering myself)
Well, we still merge from the official mutt upstream -- so it would
be probably good to keep the code "compatible" with the upstream.
So this isn't a "real" fork, in the sense that you are trying to stay
compatible with "upstream". I'd like to do some cleanups/refactoring,
but that complicates things if not done upstream first (and that means
fiddling with hg #sadpanda).
> - Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
Not sure, it would be probably better to keep it compatible.
Since it's not a
"hard" fork, +1.
Note that you don't want to install mutt to test it. I use it
directly from git repo, just "make" and "./mutt" (or ./mutt -F
~/.muttrc-kz etc.)
Doing this already :)
--
qmx
4004
days inactive
4018
days old
mutt-kz@lists.fedoraproject.org
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Douglas Campos -
Karel Zak