state of the fork

[Douglas Campos]

Howdy!

After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've ended here.

Tons of questions:
- What's the state of the fork?
- Is there any plans of doing a release?
- What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've moved
    to git (volunteering myself)
- What to do with all those open pull requests?
- Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?

Thanks!

[Karel Zak]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 03:02:31AM -0300, Douglas Campos wrote:
> After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've ended here.
>
> Tons of questions:
> What's the state of the fork?

Active (although I was too busy in last months to do any real work).
> Is there any plans of doing a release?

Good question. I'd like to update my Fedora packages with mutt-kz
 this week. Not sure about a real release.
> What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've moved
>  to git (volunteering myself)

Well, we still merge from the official mutt upstream -- so it would
 be probably good to keep the code "compatible" with the upstream.
> What to do with all those open pull requests?

I have closed almost all (sorry for the delay).
> Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?

Not sure, it would be probably better to keep it compatible.

Note that you don't want to install mutt to test it. I use it
 directly from git repo, just "make" and "./mutt" (or ./mutt -F ~/.muttrc-kz etc.)

Karel

[Douglas Campos]

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:39:59PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
> > Is there any plans of doing a release?
>
> Good question. I'd like to update my Fedora packages with mutt-kz
>  this week. Not sure about a real release.

Having at least tags on the git repo would help to track changes - wdyt?
> > What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've moved
> >  to git (volunteering myself)
>
> Well, we still merge from the official mutt upstream -- so it would
>  be probably good to keep the code "compatible" with the upstream.

So this isn't a "real" fork, in the sense that you are trying to stay
compatible with "upstream". I'd like to do some cleanups/refactoring,
but that complicates things if not done upstream first (and that means
fiddling with hg #sadpanda).
> > Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
>
> Not sure, it would be probably better to keep it compatible.

Since it's not a "hard" fork, +1.
> Note that you don't want to install mutt to test it. I use it
>  directly from git repo, just "make" and "./mutt" (or ./mutt -F ~/.muttrc-kz etc.)

Doing this already :)