[Pkg-mutt-maintainers] mutt-1.6.2, or neomutt?

[Kevin J. McCarthy]

It looks like the 1.6.2 uploaded to unstable now includes the 32k-line
patch of "neomutt".

Recently, I've had people ask questions on #mutt or mutt-dev about bugs
that in fact are caused by these neomutt patches.  (e.g. madduck, who
you can ask about "old" flag behavior).

At least some of the most recent neomutt patch contains *incomplete*
modifications I have done to the sidebar taken out of our mutt
development branch for 1.7.0.  Missing fixes include:
  https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/6f2fe8f32dab
  https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/5fb53b95afa7
  https://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/rev/ec4c113a3d2b

I have worked very hard the past three years to restart Mutt
development, fix bugs, get 1.5.24, 1.6.0, .1, and .2 out.  I've also
spent a considerable amount of effort since 1.6.0 refactoring Mutt's
internal drawing logic, and then fixing up issues with the sidebar patch
to get a supportable version (that doesn't shit all over the code) into
Mutt.

But all this work feels like it's for naught because you are including a
32k-line blob of varying quality patches, along with part of my own
in-progress 1.7.0 development commits, into a supposed bug-fix only
release, and calling it mutt-1.6.2.

It's your right to make judgment calls about what to ship to Debian
users, but you disrespect the Mutt developers by then calling it Mutt.
Please call it NeoMutt, base it off of their tarball, and send bug
reports to them.

Thank you,

-Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mutt-maintainers/attachments/20160803/7d9ae2c3/attachment.sig>