Re: state of the fork

[Suvayu Ali]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Douglas Campos  wrote:
> After getting frustrated with mutt's development pace, I've ended here.

Actually recently it started being quite active.  Some details below.
> Tons of questions:
> What's the state of the fork?

It is moderately active (my impression as a user)
> 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)

I think the hg stuff is around to facilitate easy merging with latest
mutt developments.  mutt-kz was synced with latest mutt developments
few months ago.

As you can see here: http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/, mutt has been
quite active lately.
> What to do with all those open pull requests?
> Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?

Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
executable name same.  For example both uses the same user startup
file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.

Cheers,

--
Suvayu

Open source is the future. It sets us free.

state of the fork

[Douglas Campos]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:32AM +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > What about cleaning all the hg stuff from the repo since we've moved
> >       to git (volunteering myself)
>
> I think the hg stuff is around to facilitate easy merging with latest
> mutt developments.  mutt-kz was synced with latest mutt developments
> few months ago.
>
> As you can see here: http://dev.mutt.org/hg/mutt/, mutt has been
> quite active lately.

Well, I wanted to add a feature to sidebar-patch, and just by thinking
on doing a patch over a patch made my lazyness kick in :P
> > What to do with all those open pull requests?
> > Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
>
> Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
> compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
> executable name same.  For example both uses the same user startup
> file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.

Having a different executable name would help folks like me that are
unsure about switching to not tamper with everything and try in parallel
;)

Cheers!

state of the fork

[Suvayu Ali]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 01:16:55PM -0300, Douglas Campos wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 09:21:32AM +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> > > Any reason for not renaming the target executable to mutt-kz?
> >
> > Again my comment is as a user, since mutt-kz is in every way backwards
> > compatible with mutt I think it would be more consistent to keep the
> > executable name same.  For example both uses the same user startup
> > file, ~/.muttrc, the configuration formats are same, and so on.
>
> Having a different executable name would help folks like me that are
> unsure about switching to not tamper with everything and try in parallel

I package mutt-kz in an rpm for F18.  If executable names were
different, I think it would be a lot more work for me to integrate the
mutt-kz specific things to the Fedora spec file I get from fedorahosted.
Just offering a different perspective.

You could try something else; keep mutt from your distribution
installed, and run mutt-kz from it's compilation directory.  I used to
do that before I figured out the changes needed to the spec file.

If you want, I could also provide my source rpm.

Hope this helps,

state of the fork

[Douglas Campos]

On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 07:08:11PM +0200, Suvayu Ali wrote:
> I package mutt-kz in an rpm for F18.  If executable names were
> different, I think it would be a lot more work for me to integrate the
> mutt-kz specific things to the Fedora spec file I get from fedorahosted.
> Just offering a different perspective.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing right now.
> You could try something else; keep mutt from your distribution
> installed, and run mutt-kz from it's compilation directory.  I used to
> do that before I figured out the changes needed to the spec file.

I'm doing this, for me it's just awkward because even if it's called a
fork, it's not a fork per se ;)
> If you want, I could also provide my source rpm.

Thanks, mac user here (/me ducks)