Re: which version of mutt?
- To: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: which version of mutt?
- From: Kyle Wheeler <kyle-mutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:39:05 -0600
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
- Dkim-signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=memoryhole.net; h=received:received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; q=dns/txt; s=default; bh=CK9qzxsBOIYED40e3DuLLp4A82k=; b=F2u+Qb0o2Ml6nwM4ZN4JMdce+LRuCGjtN0jUPDk2fS9cYaWjAH9K/630okM3e4CU1pR/ajGzE1d7OEEZwZE+E6FrsYWevEk0v1B5Xe8bQHxbjZOJjvr9Fnu22PCM/32tqJcx0USEoN3NZCX1C7PbH5rPI96LtyReEVRf8sarM0c=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=memoryhole.net; b=jB43htymAERIBA0jfXQ3GwhQhU0qzGqNfB0I84LW0zbVn0EhoxIH6sRxp0xOr8OUdNzgQ3zWtFGbg1xmQ2lhwaG7vcYMxM9L+QfbdP5esiyy52yHLQ7MDOSSgtP7O6RNHwuimd5YO90CZsMD2H/ynkocsdfm8RBmCdX/zS16SmA=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Mail-Followup-To:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:User-Agent;
- In-reply-to: <20070811152534.GB7945@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-post: <mailto:mutt-users@mutt.org>
- List-unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@mutt.org, body only "unsubscribe mutt-users"
- Mail-followup-to: mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- References: <20070811152534.GB7945@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-mutt-users@xxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-07-09)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, August 11 at 08:25 AM, quoth Gary Funck:
> I notice that many of the contributors to the list use version 1.5,
> while FC5 version I'm using is 1.4.
1.5 is the development branch, 1.4 is stable. But 1.5 is much cooler.
:)
> I've also read about mutt-ng (next generation), which
> seems to have many 1.5 enhancements as well as other
> features such as a side panel for folders. Are there
> plans integrate mutt-ng features back into the mainline?
> Anyone use mutt-ng, how stable is it?
The story goes that around about 1.5.3 or so, mutt kinda stagnated,
and not much further development was going on. The primary developer
got busy with other things (as they say, "life happens"), and since
mutt has been a one-man show for most of its life, it has been
particularly susceptible to this sort of thing. Mutt-ng (ng stands for
"next generation") started as a fork of mutt that incorporated many of
the more popular patches that people had developed, and (I'm told)
contained one or two novel additions.
Then mutt development came back to life. Many patches were
incorporated into mainline mutt, but some (most notably the sidebar
patch) were rejected for being too complex and too poorly written (and
somewhat counter to the developer's vision of mutt). Mutt incorporated
most of the -ng improvements, and continues to be developed at a
quicker pace than previously (there's currently a bit of a push on to
stabilize for a 1.6 release). Because of the change in mutt's
activity, mutt-ng's development stagnated and died. More recently,
mutt-ng has been reborn as, more or less, a place where the sidebar
patch (and one or two others) lives on.
There are *no* plans to further incorporate -ng back into the
mainstream mutt. The sidebar patch was considered and rejected (as-is,
however to my knowledge the door was left open for the developer to
improve it and resubmit, though given the history and apparently some
bad blood (given the cursing in other messages to this list), that
seems unlikely).
~Kyle
- --
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-- Samuel Johnson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iD8DBQFGvnLJBkIOoMqOI14RAnjxAKDkkbz6zmDpfL3t3Jc5R+zaX/OwAwCg0NFG
rgnJB0RiEotd4+67pT6mhGI=
=rbm0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----