Re: mbox-hook: broken or useless?
Hello,
> I have noticed this: No matter how useful or sought-after a patch
> is, the maintainers seem very intent on a total feature freeze.
No, you just need a master in marketing to sell it to them.
> If my impression is correct, and this doesn't change, I wouldn't be
> surprised if mutt-ng (or some other fork for that matter) eventually
> becomes the dominant branch.
Most of the people are happy with mutt as-is. And if they're not, they
don't take the time to actually bother.
> Is this because the maintainers have lost interest and only care about
> their own requirements (which I'm sure mutt has fulfilled a long time
> ago)?
Actually I think that the two who have the big insight into things (ME,
tlr) don't have the time or the lust to bother more than they do at the
moment. And there is no exisiting substitute, because noone has the
insight it takes to be a maintainer. At the moment I think that Roco
from the mutt-ng does a better job every day. And he seems to have the
time and the lust to get things working.
> My first thought was to make it work /only/ on the inbox, but
> that would make it very specific to the way I use email, so the
> extra mailbox pattern argument is a good idea.
My first thought was that, too. But making it generic isn't a bad idea
and not that much work. So lets go for it.
Thomas