Re: mutt development status
Hi, Moritz Barsnick!
Sometime (on Tuesday, July 12 at 12:54) I've received something...
>On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 23:53:17 +0300, Andriy N. Gritsenko wrote:
>> >> What about NNTP?
>> >Discussed, with viewpoints on both sides. Since nobody could agree on it
>> >going in or staying out, I would guess that's why it stayed out.
>> Only reason that I've ever seen against of including (optional!) NNTP
>> support into Mutt was "Mutt is mail reading program, not news" and it was
>> from Thomas Roessler years ago. I hope it's changed now. :) If not, then
>> would you like to discuss it and find common solution for that?
>I use the vvv-NNTP patch a lot, and I love having NNTP in mutt. Yet
>some of it is hackety-hack IMO, and needs to be fixed before being
>perceived as a releasable feature.
Hmm, what you mean "is hackety-hack"? What is a hack there? I've
tried do all things right. I'll be glad to hear all about it!
>Actually, I should get in touch with the author of the patch and
>complain with him. ;-)
Yes, you may say all what you want and even slap me if you find some
reasons for that, since originally author of that NNTP patch was me,
Vsevolod is fixing and porting it since I got tired to port it to newest
and newest versions of Mutt somewhere at 2000th year. ;)
>I've heard of mutt-ng for the first time now, but I do approve of their
>approach, in those terms that it would save _myself_ integrating a lot
>of conflicting patches every time... But if that branch is indeed also
>dead^Wquiet, what's the point? All those lovely patches out there, and
>nobody willing to maintain or properly integrate them. :-(
Fully agree. I think, these patches may be safely integrated into
Mutt since they may be optional (via --enable-XXX configure switches).
>Moritz, running these patches BTW (not that I need all of them):
[.......]
With best wishes.
Andriy.