[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi () kde ! org>
Date:       2013-10-19 10:29:19
Message-ID: 20131019102919.GA18932 () ugly ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

hi,

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:52:22AM +0200, jpacner@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 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.

> Please don't consider it offensive, but chasing is just your fear in
> my eyes.
>
i have nothing to fear. i have no stakes in mutt, other than as a user.

> If the mutt developers would feel like that (plus demotivated and
> unrealistic), I would say they have definitely *lost the vital
> approach* of developing mutt *in themselves*. Which could or could not
> be true, but from the outside, it seems so.
> 
of course it is (*), and that's the whole point. you are asking them to
concede that they are just in the way, and to endorse whatever follows.
it would be more fair to ask them directly to officially step down and
hand out mainline commit rights no-strings-attached to almost anyone,
instead of doing it through the backdoor of a branch.

(*) excluding the recent "surge" of activity by ME. but i think it's
obvious that this is more goodwill than the real thing ... still, much
appreciated.

> > further, when casual contributors see how easy it is to get their
> > changes integrated into a sufficiently official branch (which it would
> > be, because it's likely what distributors would use), their motivation
> > to polish the changes will be lower, thus further complicating the
> > "proper" maintainers' job.
> 
> Don't pretend to be pessimistic. According to trac, it's not true that
> the motivation will be lower.
>
i wonder how you can know that?
unless of course you concluded that it already is zero at this point.

> Those who really care about mutt that much that they create a ticket
> in trac and prepare a patch are definitely sufficiently motivated to
> polish it.
>
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 make no such
pretenses.

> What you're doing is publicly stating you don't trust anyone (except
> the core mutt developers) in anything.
>
this is entirely true, and judging from experience with my own projects
it is an entirely reasonable approach.

> This is definitely not a vital approach of project development, but
> quite the opposite.
> 
indeed. everybody has their priorities. we tend to become more
conservative (security-focused) with age.

> > that's where the current maintainers will throw in the towel, and the
> > "open" branch becomes the official mainline.
> > this may (after a phase of massive instability, numerous data losses and
> > security bugs, and a hg history *nobody* wants to read) turn out to be
> > the best thing that happened to the project within a decade, but let's
> > not kid ourselves about the nature of such a thing: it's a fork.
> 
> Not sure if you're trying to alleviate this serious problem by inventing
> new kid-tales or just slept badly.
> 
actually, i'm talking from first-hand experience with the midnight
commander project. luckily it is a much less critical tool than a mail
reader.

> > asking the current maintainers to endorse it by hosting it on the
> > official infrastructure is ... bold.
> 
> Developers and maintainers shall be bold :-)
> 
of course you should, but be careful where you apply the boldness.
first deliver, then be bold.

> > what you are saying is "mutt is from the last millenium, and that's
> > where it should stay".
> 
> Exactly - if I'm not mistaken, this is the attitude of most mutt users
> and I suppose of most developers and maintainers as well.
> 
i think you are thoroughly mistaken about this. it's the impression some
non-contributing loudmouths on the lists create, but it is in no way
representative. the wish list on trac speaks a very clear language. i
also don't think the maintainers want mutt to be stale - they just don't
have the time/motivation to push it forward themselves, and nobody
they'd trust to take over.

> > that's an understandable attitude for somebody who merely wants to
> > get rid of a backlog of 3rd party patches, but isn't exactly a
> > perspective that would motivate anybody to revitalize the project
> > (it's oxymoronic to start with).
> 
> I don't see any connection between incorporation of patches from trac
> on a half-trusted developer basis and the attitude of "mutt is stable,
> has its own direction - which corresponds with the way MUA was used in
> the last millenium - and it should stay like that". So I don't quite
> get the inferred statement about backlog and motivation, on which the
> oxymoronic feel was built.
> 
as a downstream maintainer you have an interest in delivering as many
fixes and features to your users as possible. as you are not developing
yourself (*), your focus is on incorporating existing 3rd party
contributions. this wouldn't quite work if somebody with significantly
diverging ideas took over. in the end you might get something better
than what you wanted, but it doesn't match your current integrative/
conservative focus. the oxymoron here is "conservative revitalization".

(*) no idea about you personally. speaking to the "generic distro guy"
now.

anyway, this thread isn't going anywhere. you have two options:
- play by the rules of the current maintainers: review patches, show a
  good understanding of the code base, demonstrate dedication, become a
  maintainer yourself
- fork somewhere else, and when you think you succeeded, come back and
  claim the title. yes, this actually worked with the midnight
  commander.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]