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

[Antonio Radici]

Adding my opinions here just for the records

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:51:49PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:43:07AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > As you can imagine, rebasing all those patches after every mutt release
> > has been a pain for the various mutt maintainers.
> 
> Yes, I understand the burden.  However, I *have* been working on this.
> I've been fixing and merging patches even back in the 1.5.24 release
> (e.g. multiple crypt-hook patch).
> 
> I've also been replying to Debian bugs and trying to give you all a
> heads-up on things that have been fixed.  Feel free to check out 763522,
> 128945, 434235, 742627, 711511, 759013, 751476, 774666, 775199, 800780,
> 816706.  There are probably more...

Hi Kevin,
I can certainly certify that you did that and you have been very responsive,
since you joined the upstream team we were able to close a lot more bugs than
before.

> My goal last year was to get our first stable release in over 10 years
> out: 1.6.0.  That was not the time to throw caution to the wind and
> merge willy-nilly.
[...]

> I could go on, but basically the attitude that upstream is hopeless,
> especially coming from Debian (which I've been a long-time user of, and
> have tried to engage with), is a slap in the face.  Particularly, at
> this point when I've been trying to do exactly what you are saying I
> need to do: release more often, be more responsive, and merge patches.

I don't agree with that (that = upstream is hopeless), we worked together in the
past on some bugs and I can confirm that it is not true.
If the problem is that neomutt was merged as a single patch we can work with the
neomutt maintainer and fix that and maybe have it in separate patches.

The removal of the mutt-patched binary was something that I approve because it
ease the mainteinace burden on our side, at the same time I understand your
concerns of having a single patch that completely modifies the way mutt behaves
adding a lot of lines of code.

> That said, I don't intend to just take every patch and merge it in
> as-is, and I don't agree that that's what it means for the project to be
> healthy again.

Obviously I understand that.

[...]
> I think the stats speak for themselves here.  You are taking a ginormous
> "neomutt branded" patch, (almost 1/3rd the size of our codebase) and
> just accepting it.  It's disingenuous to even argue this is the same as
> your other patches, or to somehow argue it's equally modified by the
> Debian patches.
> 
> At least before, you had control over the patches, and could
> affirmatively say how you had modified upstream (assuming Mutt is
> upstream, which I don't think is true anymore).

To be honest this can be re-evaluated and changed, I'm more in favour of having
something similar to upstream than something patched with 1/3rd the size of the
codebase; at the same time we will need to work with upstream anyway so it is
good if we maintain a good relationship.

> > It sounds like a mutt 1.7.0 + neomutt Debian release would be the
> > closest we have been to upstream mutt since 2006 or so. Would us
> > shipping that as soon as it gets released as mutt still make you
> > unhappy?
> 
> I would have been more okay with this.
> 
> It just upsets me to see a stable release, 1.6.2, be the testing ground
> for removing the mutt-patched package and adding neomutt to the "core"
> mutt package, particularly given you are aware of the work I've done.
> 
> It's more infuriating to see the changes I've been excited to announce
> for 1.7 taken, partially botched, and labeled as a neomutt addition to
> 1.6.2.
> 
> Lastly, the implied vote of no-confidence makes me sad.

Let's try to understand what works for you and what we can do, 1.6.2 is still in
unstable and that means we can block it if required, I will certainly have a
better look at the neomutt patch between today and tomorrow.

Having the 1.7 closer to upstream is what we want, what is currently happening
can be reconsidered (in my opinion), obviously it would be better if we find a
compromise together rather than rolling back everything.

Please let us know what works for you and let's work from there.