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

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       Derek Martin <invalid () pizzashack ! org>
Date:       2013-10-24 15:46:16
Message-ID: 20131024154616.GF13241 () dragontoe ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


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 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 patches, they don't do patch review.

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)... though many of those people now do
actually have commit rights.  I'm one of those people, who still does
not have commit rights (and frankly, don't want them).

I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying; I'm just saying it
isn't a universal truth.  And there are still at least a few in the
Mutt community who are not maintainers but who still are willing (even
eager) to take the time to do some of the things you are talking
about.  Though, it may not be enough...

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.


[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

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