* On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 09:21AM -0800 Kevin J. McCarthy (ke...@8t8.us) muttered:
> [Apologies if this turns out to be a dup. The email I sent yesterday
> appears to have been eaten by a grue.]
>
> This afternoon, Antonio uploaded the mutt-1.9.1 tarball as the Debian
> unstable mutt package,
[Apologies if this turns out to be a dup. The email I sent yesterday
appears to have been eaten by a grue.]
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:21:54PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:24:37PM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J.
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:24:37PM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:17:02AM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> > > From your statement above I understand your point clearly, I think a
> > > solution
> > >
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:02:51PM -0500, Jeremy Volkening wrote:
> > I hope an amicable resolution can be worked out, but I really think that
> > the package should be called 'neomutt', and that the 'mutt' package, if
> > any, should be based on the upstream source, and should more or less
> >
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:17:02AM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> > From your statement above I understand your point clearly, I think a
> > solution
> > can be found and Debian tooling provides various alternatives, I will
> >
I hope an amicable resolution can be worked out, but I really think
that the package should be called 'neomutt', and that the 'mutt'
package, if any, should be based on the upstream source, and should
more or less expect as people expect "mutt" to work. Or, if they want
to standardize on
On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:26:25AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > So please submit your proposal, and I do expect something soon, but
> > don't expect my cooperation unless you are willing to ship something
> > _much_,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:44:29AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> So please submit your proposal, and I do expect something soon, but
> don't expect my cooperation unless you are willing to ship something
> _much_, _much_ closer to my upstream tarball.
As an update, I have filed bug 870635 in
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:17:02AM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> From your statement above I understand your point clearly, I think a solution
> can be found and Debian tooling provides various alternatives, I will discuss
> the various options with a couple of people more expert than me on
On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 08:41:48AM -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2017-07-01 08:17, Antonio Radici wrote:
>
> > The only reason for the upstream switch was the code indenting
> > changes, which would have make the neomutt patch bigger than the mutt
> > source code, if we could get these in the
On Fr, 30 Jun 2017, Antonio Radici wrote:
> mutt source code as you release it? It was never like this even before 1.6.*,
> when we had extra patches on the top of mutt, what should I do with
> patches/features which are (and were) expected on the top of mutt?
That's what the mutt-patched
On 2017-07-01 08:17, Antonio Radici wrote:
> The only reason for the upstream switch was the code indenting
> changes, which would have make the neomutt patch bigger than the mutt
> source code, if we could get these in the main mutt source code that
> can help any proposal to restructure the
Hi Kevin,
I slept on it and my mind is clearer now, replying to email after a day of work
is never a good choice for me, replies inline :)
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 04:25:11PM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Starting with a vanilla mutt tarball and adding a set of patches, broken
> out by bug fix
On 30.06.17 16:25, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Starting with a vanilla mutt tarball and adding a set of patches, broken
> out by bug fix or feature, is fairly standard practice. It's easy to
> see what is changed, and I think is still fair to call mutt.
>
> If you take a vanilla mutt tarball and
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:55:33PM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > As you know, the same thing happened with 1.6.2, when you first started
> > incorporating NeoMutt. Your NeoMutt patches included half implemented
> > features
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 10:54:16AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> Here's the thing. Your tarball is not just Mutt 1.8.3 + some NeoMutt
> stuff. It includes most everything in my development (default) branch
> for 1.9.0 as of 20170609. Stuff that hasn't had time to bake, or that I
> feel I
The convention is to give a fork a new, different name.
The neomutt fork did so by calling their project "neomutt".
So far so good.
I'm surprised and disappointed to see that Debian as of now
has chosen to conflate the two projects and pollute the
namespace.
Renaming Debian's "mutt" to
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:03:22AM +, Antonio Radici wrote:
> I agree that the naming + versioning is confusing but I've sorted that out
> since
> we switched .tar.gz from usptream a week ago, not +neomutt2017 is in the
> version, for example the latest version of mutt is
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 09:47:50AM -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, leo wrote:
> > I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes
> > into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept" [2].
>
> No, it's a fork. And
Hi everybody,
thanks a lot for all your answer.
> > I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes
> > into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept"
> > [2].
>
> No, it's a fork. And no, they don't get features into a state I will
> accept.
Ok,
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:05:35PM +0200, leo wrote:
> I've read that Neomutt is not a fork "We merge all of Mutt's changes
> into NeoMutt and get features into a state that Mutt will accept" [2].
No, it's a fork. And no, they don't get features into a state I will
accept.
> It isn't a big
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:19:27PM +0200, steve wrote:
> Hi leo,
>
> I have the same setup as you do (debian stretch+mutt).
>
> On [1], one can read:
>
> This package is built with the NeoMutt patchset, which includes a number
> of additional features compared to the stock Mutt.
>
> Which I
Hi leo,
I have the same setup as you do (debian stretch+mutt).
On [1], one can read:
This package is built with the NeoMutt patchset, which includes a number
of additional features compared to the stock Mutt.
Which I don't interpret as you do; debian's mutt is compiled with the
NeoMutt
Hi everybody,
I'm writing because I've a question about Mutt and Neomutt on Debian.
My operating system is actually Debian Stable (Stretch) and I've
installed the mutt package (1.7.2-1).
How can you see here [1] when you install Mutt, the repository
automatically install Neomutt.
I've read
24 matches
Mail list logo
