vars naming scheme concerns
Moin Thomas (Roessler),
when we talked about the issue last time on IRC, your main concern
was that it breaks compatibility with the currently installed user
base. Let's see what this is:
"dev" users who already have cried about the "alternates" change
(you didn't mention it, but "use_envelope_from" breaks it the same
way).
"stable" users, who _still_ have to go through the very same
(painful) change when they finally upgrade to the next official
stable release.
Do you want those "stable" users to go through the same pain,
suffering, crying?
I hope not, or why would "dev" users be more important to you than
"stable" users? (Are there so many less "stable" than "dev" users?)
So, to save or rather ease the pain for and crying from the
"stable" users, let them benefit from big announcements (at the
end of build process as well as eye-catching notes) and a
script which automatically converts their old configs.
When we already have that script for the "stable" users, the
number of changes doesn't matter, so it would be no extra cost to
introduce the naming scheme.
As for "dev" users who would have to apply this script extra:
it is the very nature for them to live with changes, they have to
deal with them with every patch that comes along. Among those
dynamics applying this script once would be just part of their
"daily" business of changes as it is to update their binary.
As for incompatibility between different mutt binary versions:
this _is_ already broken for the 2 cases of "alternates" +
"use_envelope_from".
Aside from that, the multi-version support exists already in all
mutt versions per section 3, so this is covered, too.
Summarizing, this makes:
- no extra cost,
- while meaningful names are a gain for the manual users (and
those who don't use them but go via adapted examples first).
Where fails my logic?
Given the need for an improved manual (as pointed out by
Rocco/pdmef) this is the big chance for "gratis" (no extra pain)
part of improvement.
Again I agree to everything that Rocco has listed with regard to
the manual:
- re-work the manual so what gets committed must be a huge update
to make things more consistent in total at once.
- rewrite the manual (not just re-organize) to reflect groups of
"tasks" and such. (maybe a la MuttGuide)
- coordinate with major maintainers for joined action ahead of
time.
- lots of publicity ahead of time to spread the word, i.e. mutt
2.0 could possibly make the media catch up (so that people can
read about it in the news, not when updating).
Did I miss something?
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.