Hi, * Patrick Schoenfeld [07-10-18 20:52:22 +0200] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:30:07PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
Depends on what you want to achieve: do we want mutt to be acceptable in the business no matter what?
if we were talking about anything thats very harmful to mutt in general I would say: No. But we are talking about a mini feature, thats quiet useful in business, so in this single case: Yes.
[...]
Because the external solution will always hink after mutt, the maintainance needs are a lot higher, as a one-time integration into mutt source (because further changes are just streamlined into the normal development process), etc. It is simple: Offcourse it is possible, but there are a lot more cons about implementing it outside of mutt, then pros to keep it out of mutt.
IHMO the problem is not that it wouldn't be useful or potentially not used by the majority of users... I see the problem that somebody has to test it and needs to track mutt development versions to make sure it still works as things internally change.
Though I have something in the works, it's really difficult to automatically test mutt code since "it compiles without warnings" doesn't mean it actually works as advertised.
For example, the exact address feature is in the code for quite some time, and it's broken for quite some time and though it's been voted against removal nobody took the time to fix it within something like a full year now (or even more).
The same could happen if this feature got included. And if then some new user looking for specifically just that feature tried out mutt and find that feature being broken it actually could do harm to mutt's reputation.
Rocco
