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

[Faidon Liambotis]

Hi Kevin,

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:51:49PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> 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...

Ack. I've seen these and your efforts are truly appreciated.

> 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'm sorry if this felt like a slap in the face -- this was not the
intention and apologies if it felt like that.

It is not my belief that "upstream is hopeless" either; as I explained
before, I see this neomutt situation as temporary, which is why my
preference was to not go for an entirely separate source package and
abandon the "vanilla" mutt upstream altogether. This perception of mine
was exactly because of your efforts and the movement that I saw in
"default", not despite of it.

> 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.

My personal PoV (and YMMV) is that there is a middle ground to be found
here. I applaud your efforts to have a clean codebase and maintain a a
good quality product, but on the other hand there are patches out there
that have been battle-tested by hundreds of users (Debian or otherwise)
for the better part of a decade (e.g. compressed folders?). Merging at
least some of them and cleaning them up in later releases could
potentially be an alternative strategy you could pursue. Just my 2 cents
though :)
 
> > 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.

I'm sorry that you feel upset, infuriated and sad, Kevin. Definitely not
my intention. I can only hope with the advent of 1.7, and thus a much
smaller neomutt, we can get back on the right track. I'll try to
interact with you on your bug tracker more going forward.

Let me or the other Debian mutt maintainers know if there is anything we
can do in the meantime.

Best regards,
Faidon