On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 04:08:24PM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote: > Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 09:46:19PM +0200, Rado S wrote: > > > It's not a bug but a feature that not everything that is possible is > > > built-in but must/can be accomplished elsewhere. > > > > I have always, and still do find this argument to be um, less than > > well thought out (to put it extremely mildly). Adding features does > > not inherently add bloat; > > Actually, it does. Every feature, and every line of code generally, incurs > both a development cost, and maintenance costs. This is not the same as bloat. From Merriam Webster: bloat - n. 1 a: one that is bloated b: unwarranted or excessive growth or enlargement <bureaucratic bloat> Growth is not inherently unwanted or unwarranted or excessive. So, no, it actually doesn't. Clean code added to address the needs of the users is inherently not bloat. > If your pet feature is minimal code, but the developers don't want > to include it because what you're asking is already possible another > way -- just maintain a local patch for it. Every time you want to > upgrade, apply your patch to the fresh code -- voila. You get your > feature, and the developers don't get the development, testing, and > support overhead associated with it. Everyone wins. Yes, I've done > exactly this myself. So have I, and it sucks. Every time I had to update the patch, I couldn't help but think, "the fact that I have to do this is retarded." Patches that don't get added to the code base need to be maintained... even small ones. My patches eventually did make it into mainstream mutt, and as such required far less maintenance, because the code they touch rarely changes significantly, but just enough that creating a new patch was needed fairly frequently. Maintaining patches for features that lots of people want is a stupid waste of work. If the maintainers don't want to maintain the code, then they probably should stop being maintainers. -- 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 due to spam prevention. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Attachment:
pgpSuNmdEXYSU.pgp
Description: PGP signature