2:21 a.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've ended here.
Actually recently it started being quite active. Some details below.
Tons of questions:
- What's the state of the fork?
It is moderately active (my impression as a user)
- 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)
I think the hg stuff is around to facilitate easy merging with latest
mutt developments. mutt-kz was synced with latest mutt developments
few months ago.
As you can see here: <http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/>;, mutt has been
quite active lately.
- What to do with all those open pull requests?
- Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
executable name same. For example both uses the same user startup
file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.
Cheers,
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
11:16 a.m.
New subject: state of the fork
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:32AM +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> - What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since
we've moved
> to git (volunteering myself)
I think the hg stuff is around to facilitate easy merging with latest
mutt developments. mutt-kz was synced with latest mutt developments
few months ago.
As you can see here: <http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/>;, mutt has been
quite active lately.
Well, I wanted to add a feature to sidebar-patch, and just by
thinking
on doing a patch over a patch made my lazyness kick in :P
> - What to do with all those open pull requests?
> - Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
executable name same. For example both uses the same user startup
file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.
Having a different
executable name would help folks like me that are
unsure about switching to not tamper with everything and try in parallel
;)
Cheers!
--
qmx
12:08 p.m.
New subject: state of the fork
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 01:16:55PM -0300, Douglas Campos wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:32AM +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > - Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
>
> Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
> compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
> executable name same. For example both uses the same user startup
> file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.
Having a different executable name would help folks like me that are
unsure about switching to not tamper with everything and try in parallel
I package mutt-kz in an rpm for F18. If executable names were
different, I think it would be a lot more work for me to integrate the
mutt-kz specific things to the Fedora spec file I get from fedorahosted.
Just offering a different perspective.
You could try something else; keep mutt from your distribution
installed, and run mutt-kz from it's compilation directory. I used to
do that before I figured out the changes needed to the spec file.
If you want, I could also provide my source rpm.
Hope this helps,
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
7:56 p.m.
New subject: state of the fork
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 07:08:11PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
I package mutt-kz in an rpm for F18. If executable names were
different, I think it would be a lot more work for me to integrate the
mutt-kz specific things to the Fedora spec file I get from fedorahosted.
Just offering a different perspective.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing
right now.
You could try something else; keep mutt from your distribution
installed, and run mutt-kz from it's compilation directory. I used to
do that before I figured out the changes needed to the spec file.
I'm doing
this, for me it's just awkward because even if it's called a
fork, it's not a fork per se ;)
If you want, I could also provide my source rpm.
Thanks, mac
user here (/me ducks)
--
qmx
4007
days inactive
4008
days old
mutt-kz@lists.fedoraproject.org
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Douglas Campos -
Suvayu Ali