Hi, * Andriy N. Gritsenko [05-07-13 15:05:17 +0300] wrote:
Sometime (on Tuesday, July 12 at 12:54) I've received something...
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!
It's somewhat very ugly as it is, by nature, a patch and not a feature well integrated into mutt.
Actually, I should get in touch with the author of the patch and complain with him. ;-)
That won't help. I tried this once and requested support for NNTP features such as cancels and supersedes. He told me that there's no need to implement it because one can do this easily by hand because there's some RfC describing how this works.
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. :-(
Sorry, but have you really ever once tried it? This isn't as easy as it sounds. Of course, if "integrate" means to apply a patch it'll be a matter of minutes only but in the end you will definitely get even more unmaintainable code.
For example, the sidebar patch available for mutt looks to work at first sight but there're many things just heavily broken or things you really don't want to stay in the code (like using snprintf() and strlen() to "calculate" the amount of digits of a number.)
Really to integrate a patch by means of merging its functionality with the existing to get a better code base just is much more difficult than it sounds especially when you keep in mind that it also takes time get an idea of what the source is supposed to do how.
Fully agree. I think, these patches may be safely integrated into Mutt since they may be optional (via --enable-XXX configure switches).
But in the end you get more unmaintainable code using more ifdefs and such which will break at all ends as soon as change a single line which doesn't seem to anything to with it. For example, the exact address feature has been kicked for muttng because it's broken. Somehow the docs say that but the code still is there and nobody can tell when it broke for what reason and what was the evil change. It's things like that we (muttng people) spend most of the time on.
If you still think that there's some good solid code base right now, just have a look at ci_send_message() in send.c and try describe its functionality in detail or explain what the exact technical reason is for having to write the very same code two times for both, the index and pager, etc.
bye, Rocco -- :wq!