On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:38:06PM +0100, Paul Walker wrote: > I also said that the only way to prove it either way is for someone to do it > and see. If the resulting mutt - when it eventually surfaces, in a year or > so - is substantially faster, easier to use, easier to hack, more powerful > etc. then people will almost certainly switch over to it. I think the principles of software engineering, and the benefits thereof, are pretty well established and tested. That's all I'm advocating... so no, I don't agree. As for someone doing it, it's a pretty big task. I've considered taking it on myself, but while I would be delighted to participate, I just don't have the time to do it myself, nor do I have the expertise to do all the work myself. To make it work, the new code structure needs to be designed, and probably needs a lot of input from different people with different expertise in order to get it right. In other words, it requires an actual development process, which is something that mutt is very nearly lacking at the moment. I think ideally the current maintainers, being the most familiar with the code, should be heavily involved but need to reach out to the greater community to get it done. -- 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:
pgpcl1FHPyrlc.pgp
Description: PGP signature