clear up facts, speculation, decisions generally in mutt development
Moin Thomas,
since you haven't answered yet the question "how many does it take
to block" even after I've broken down the fraction of those you
seem to be so much concerned about, I have to ask again and some
more questions. But some facts first.
- The _official_ documentation _is_ being used.
- It is and should be offered and _supported_ as _primary_ source,
in the package and on official website.
- The manual needs improvement.
- Improvements are changes, they hurt, some people don't like it.
- Even though there are many other things in the code to do and
even additional improvements to the manual, the suggested
varnames changes _as part of these_ increase the usability
significantly for newbies (or generally manual users).
- Since the alternates + envelope_from changes _still will_ break
configs compatibility for stable users (the only to be
worried about), this is the best opportunity to do the
break right and with comparatively little cost but big
gain introduce the 2 new names along with all the others.
- You have to balance future benefit vs. immediate cost (= crying).
Those who cry do so now, those who benefit in the future
can't do so now. So naturally the number of criers is
perceived as bigger. But not all who'd be affected
resist despite their personal impact.
Now the questions:
- Why do you abuse 3rd-party sites as excuse?
It's mutt's job to provide the docs primarily. It happened
in the past that mutt changed and broke compatibility, see
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Mutt-GnuPG-PGP-HOWTO-6.html
yet things changed for "better use" despite leaving broken
3rd-party sites behind and mutt prevailed.
Alive sites will update.
If the own docs would be good enough (better than now),
there would be not so much need for 3rd party resources to
be worried about being outdated.
- Do you want to rely on 3rd-party sites (possibly unmaintained)
as docs instead of providing improved docs yourself and
with that prevent any likewise changes as mentioned above
in the future if circumstances asked for it?
- The upcoming changes for stable users will break more configs
altogether _already_ than would be hit extra for all the
remaining vars since more users use those 2 vars than none
of them (speculation, see "vars naming scheme concerns"
thread for numbers).
You approved of the 2 changes breaking many users' configs
for comparatively "little" gain: _generally better use_.
Will you revoke the changes so not to break stable users?
I hope you don't! Why, was it wrong?
No, because it was the _right_ thing to do: to improve
overall usability!
- Why is the always bigger and growing number of newbies of less
concern for you than the definitely small number of users
_which can deal with the changes_ who you've brought into
play (which has been broken down in the other thread)?
- Is the code the only thing you care for to improve?
Why do you push the responsibilty for good documentation/
its usability aside?
Does easier access to mutt for others have any value for
you, or only functional code for the established users?
So we have:
- broken configs + 3rd-party sites happend in the past.
That didn't hurt neither the users nor mutt itself.
- many broken configs for pretty little gain now: approved.
- just a little few more broken configs for much bigger gain: denied.
- both being "the right way" to go.
Why? Where is the relation here?
Why is improvement of code functionality for oldies worth the pain
while improvement for newbies is not?
You've proven so much concern in the past about doing the right
things right even against the odds. Why don't you show the same
when it comes to the general usability of the manual (for
newbies)?
Why worry for those who can deal with a simple change?
Why not worry for those who need more help with getting used to mutt?
And the still left unanswered question:
Why do speculations about a broken down small group matter not to
go the "right way?
How many does it take to block the "right way"?
--
© 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.