Kyle Wheeler wrote: [Wed Aug 13 2008, 10:52:29AM EDT] > Well, I imagine anyone currently using mutt in batch mode on a regular > basis (e.g. with cron) already has a working setup, and enabling hooks > by default has the potential at least to break those setups.
Well... this *is* mutt-1.5.x, the devel series, but considering that the distros are providing 1.5, you could make an argument for waiting for 1.7 to apply this patch. On the other hand, mutt releases are so miserably far apart that I don't want to wait for 1.7 for anything. I'm even considering re-proposing my sendbox patch prior to 1.6 because the thought of waiting for 1.7 is so depressing. I don't want to wait a decade for these features in distros (and that doesn't seem like an unrealistic estimate). IMHO mutt should ditch the stable/devel concept and make releases similar to kernel.org. We're never going to fix all the outstanding bugs for 1.6, so we should release it *now*. Make point releases (1.6.1 etc) to fix Really Bad Bugs, but otherwise concentrate on 1.7. To simplify from kernel.org, stop maintaining 1.6 as soon as 1.7 is released. None of this is intended to be a diatribe against the mutt maintainers. I have the utmost respect for the careful way they maintain the tree. I'd be surprised if they don't share my frustration with the current development model, though they might have better ideas on how to fix it. > Perhaps it'd be better to have a flag for enabling hooks? Really rather not. Aron
