I think features requests, especially those that come with code, are still worthwhile. We just need to back it up with a process for shepherding and incorporating the changes.
IMO mutt needs to keep up with the e-mail zeitgeist to survive. I want to be part of that, I just struggle with finding time for it. But we also need to be conservative, because as several people have mentioned "just working" is part of the paradigm. We need to find a viable path for growth that honors the needs of the community but still attracts users. My question is mainly to suss out where the community sees this balance point, and to stir discussion so that we can find participants. But I shouldn't go further without explicitly thanking Kevin for his years of effort. At this point I dare say he's more the godfather of mutt than almost any of us. On Mon, Jan 5, 2026 at 8:25 AM Jason Stewart via Mutt-dev <[email protected]> wrote: > There is so much pointless churn in the younger ecosystems. Can't fault > Kevin for having a high bar. > > I tried "meli" earlier (a mutt clone written in Rust). The compile took > forever, and when it was finally finished, the program itself just locks > up. Whereas mutt actually works. Same story between vim and neovim. > Everyone bitched about how conservative Bram & co. were when it came to > patches, but I work in vim all day without issue, while every time I try > neovim, the glitches send me running back to vim. > > So maybe it's all fine like it is, and I should have kept my feature > request to myself? > > JS > > On 26-01-05 11:16, Kurt Hackenberg wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 10:11:42AM +0000, Crystal Kolipe via Mutt-dev > wrote: > > > > > Well, maintenance mode and low growth doesn't sound like so much of a > problem > > > as an almost silent development mailing list does. > > > > Seems like there's not much point writing code when it won't be accepted. >
