<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: Mutt Next Generation



On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 08:20:10PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2005-01-26 22:34:34 -0500, Derek Martin wrote:
> 
> > I personally never use Usenet, but to me, NNTP and e-mail seem
> > like (from the perspective of the user) exactly the same thing,
> > so I see no reason why mutt shouldn't do both.  
[SNIP]
> That argument has a lot in favor of it.  But, even when I was still
> reading Usenet news, requirements for tools tend to be different.
[SNIP]
> So, basically, I'd leave it for programs like slrn to be good news
> readers, and would be happy with mutt remaining a good mail reader.

That's all well and good, ignoring the fact that a lot of mutt users
don't seem to agree with you.  In making such a decision, you're
forcing users who want the integration to learn two different
programs, or at least roll their own.  I'm inclined to think that many
more people would use the NNTP support if it were built in.  For those
who use mutt on someone else's systems (i.e. university, work, etc.)
they may have no alternative...

All of this is fine by me since I don't care one iota about NNTP, but
if mutt were my project, I would have to ask myself, is that really
the right decision for mutt and its users?  Does that decision make
mutt suck more or less?

> > > And I'm skeptic about header-caching maildirs.
> 
> > What is the nature of your skepticism?  the performance
> > enhancement is substantial, and there has been no complaint of a
> > down side that I've seen...  What's to be skeptical of?
> 
> What I'm skeptical about is the point that maildir is built very
> carefully not to require standard Unix locking functions.  That
> makes maildir the most robust folder format around, even in broken
> NFS environments.
> 
> The hcache patch, as I read it, requires locking mechanisms to work.
> Hence, it will take some of maildir's stability away.

I'll defer to the author here, but my understanding was that the
maildirs lose zero stability.  The only issue is cache coherency, and
IIRC there was a method to determine if the cache was out of sync and
rebuild it.

Is there actual instability, or is it just that you haven't had time
to review the code?  It seems that there are lots of people using the
patch, so I imagine if there were problems, we'd have heard about them
by now...

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Thank the spammers.

Attachment: pgpWjlKPZOzUj.pgp
Description: PGP signature