On Sun, May 01, 2016 at 07:02:38PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2016-04-26 09:54:48 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > David, Brendan, Vincent (and anyone else), does the prefix 'MUTT_' sound > > reasonable, or is there another prefix that would be better? > > It is reasonable, but as reasonable as M_ (for a prefix used > internally). If systems can break M_, they could break almost any > prefix (if particular if it corresponds to something readable).
Yes, I've been struggling with this. I think the difference is that Solaris has actually asserted that it's okay for systems to use the M_ prefix. They are wrong, but I doubt they care the least about our comparatively small project. The patch now in 1.6.1 "fixes" this issue for mutt, but it's an ugly band-aid. While I'm in no hurry to make such a large change to our code, Derek is right that now's as good a time as there is. I've already made some pretty large changes with the windows patch-set, so the next default-branch release is already going to cause pain to external patches. > Now, if it is OK to break patches, how about doing some other clean-up > at the same time? I mean, document code styling and make it uniform, > and fix typos in comments. Yes, that sounds okay too. I'll start a wiki page this week with what I perceive as the code styles. If we want to make large-scale changes, I would ideally like to designate a tool to do those (so we can easily verify the patches). -- Kevin J. McCarthy GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3 3AA3 7910 385C 5308 ADEF 7684 8031 6BDA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
