Ken Hornstein <[email protected]> wrote: > A larger meta-issue: I know we've had some discussion in recent times > about fixing some issue and the ball kind of just gets dropped. My > life has been complicated lately but I am hoping it will be less > complicated soon; please, if you're someone in this situation it's > not that we're ignoring you, it's more that "life is complicated > and I got distracted". > > --Ken
I get it. My own life is delightfully busy. I've had that patch I sent you sitting in my head for months, and I just now got a chance to code it up. And then I sent it to you, and I got an email response less than an hour later. I definitely do not feel ignored. You are probably referring to the "inc long lines" patch I sent in November. That's okay that you have not reviewed that big patch yet; I now think myself that that approach is too messy. I've instead decided to attack this limitation from another angle: if we can get enough of the code base to stop thinking that byte streams have to be a sequence of NUL-terminated C strings, then I think patching popsbr to handle long byte streams as byte streams should be straight-forward. I hope to be able to send you a sequence of small, easily reviewed patches. I hope my patches are simple enough that you can quickly either commit them or send them back to me for more work. I appreciate that you, nmh-workers, maintain software that I use *every day*. I feel comfortable using nmh in part because I have seen that I can get improvements made to it so that it does more of what I want. Thank you, < Stephen
