My patch was not accepted in 2009

[Derek Martin]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 03:42:49PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 11.06.2018, Bertram Scharpf wrote: 
> 
> > Last week I detected that there is an option doing partially
> > what I suggested since 2017, yet eight years after my
> > proposal. The patch still isn't as good as mine but knowing
> > that the noble people that sent me away nine years ago
> > weren't right makes me quite satified.
> 
> How about stopping complaining and submitting your code?
> "Here are friendly creatures, not at all evil" :-)

I don't think he's still listening...  I would have loved a reference
to the original message. When I searched the archives on his name it
only turned up the current thread.  My reaction was the same as
Claus': use gpg to add yourself to the recipient list.  I'll concede
that might be different than adding the feature to mutt, in ways I
can't think of, but while I was a regular encryption user I used that
solution myself (technically still do, though it's much less relevant)
and can't see how it isn't adequate.

Every feature, every configuration variable, no matter how simple, has
a cost--not just in terms of the work to add the code, but also in
terms of making sure that future changes don't break existing
features.  The more such things your software has, the harder it is to
make sure there are no bad interactions between future changes and
existing features.  Thus when there is an alternative that does not
involve a Mutt code change, previous maintainers would tend to prefer
that, over taking a patch.  I do not think it is a correct statement that
"the noble people that sent me away nine years ago weren't right..."
Rather I think it is just that each time the maintenance of Mutt has
changed hands, the new maintainer has been a bit less risk averse than
the previous one, in the name of progress.

In this I do not think there is a write or wrong, good or bad... There
is only include or do not include.  Both choices have merits (assuming
the code is good), and both choices have costs, and the decision will
affect different users differently.  I certainly understand that it
can be frustrating to make an improvement that you feel is necessary
to a piece of software you are invested in.  But ultimately, it's up
to maintainer (perhaps with advice from the larger development
commuity) to decide what costs will be accepted; it is primarily the
maintainer who has to pay them.  No one requesting a feature has a
right to demand the maintainer's time, and when you are indignant
about a patch you wrote not being included, that is what you are
doing--both now, and in perpetuity.

-- 
Derek D. Martin    http://www.pizzashack.org/   GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02
-=-=-=-=-
This message is posted from an invalid address.  Replying to it will result in
undeliverable mail due to spam prevention.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mutt.org/pipermail/mutt-dev/attachments/20180813/b6d854a6/attachment.asc>