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

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       "jpacner () redhat ! com" <jpacner () redhat ! com>
Date:       2013-11-11 14:18:21
Message-ID: 5280E72D.2070103 () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Oswald,

> and who makes *that* call? where do you draw the line? it doesn't appear
> magically, somebody with the competence and guts (=> authority) has to
> do it.

If you're bold enough (devs/committers are :)), you'll do it.

> ... but the simple fact is that there is nobody here
> who wants the job and is up to it, and no degree of trying to be "more
> welcoming" will change that.

It might be or might not be so (just thinking about it is neither
productive nor helpful - doing something [e.g. trying new paths in case
of mutt] is the way to go). We have devs primarily for stable releases
and these minions for unstable releases - KISS.

> what might work is surveying the various forks out there, and if one
> with a competent and reasonably active+cooperative maintainer is found,
> offer him the job with no further strings attached. the first part can
> (and probably must) be done by the wider community, the second by the
> maintainers.

Sure - if I understand you correctly, you mean "first part" from the
time-perspective which seems like a "title" for my proposal about
introduction of a partly-stable branch.

>>> then maybe you should explain what you meant? thinking it through
>>> properly?
>>
>> I tried, but didn't notice anyone from "those who are still around" to
>> not care. Therefore I was a bit surprised by your view/feeling.
>>
> this makes no sense. maybe you again forgot what you said yourself?

Well, "care" in the sense, they try (actively) not to give permissions
to those who try to improve/fix mutt.

> further, this here is a community which is 20 years old and cleary
> didn't have significant "modern influences". so what exactly is your
> point?

I'm afraid I can't agree with the conclusion "clearly didn't have
significant ...". From the discussion it seems we both have access to
the same sources, but each of us derives from them quite a different
result. That means the discussion is pointless unless we have other
relevant sources to help us decide.

>> In mutts trac there are plenty of patches from people who tried the
>> "more agile" variant [...]
>>
> uh, what?
> i see no evidence of a shift in unpaid foss contribution patterns.

I'm not sure if it's necessary to see the shift, but it's definitely
necessary to be aware of the current state/attitude and to act accordingly.

> also, the whole "agile" buzz seems utterly inapplicable to loosely knit
> online communities. or approached differently, they *already were* agile
> before the corporate world made it a fad.

Agile in its original meaning (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agile)
applies to the behavior of devs of many (I would say more than half)
mutt-sized projects (especially those being so common like mutt) these days.

Regards

-- Jan Pacner
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]