[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal)

From: markus schnalke
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:45:01 +0100
User-agent: nmh 1.3

[2010-12-01 14:02] David Levine <address@hidden>
> meillo wrote:
> > The point is, we collide at any point. It's the community on the one
> > side and me on the other. At least this is how it feels to me. I
> > realize that my opinions and point of view is quite different from
> > your's (at least of those who speak up).
> I trust that all opinions expressed on the issues have been
> based on good reason and intent.  Please don't feel that any
> sides are being taken, especially against an individual.
> Suggestions for improvements are always welcome by me, and
> by others from what I've observed here.


> > It seems to me as if you would be doing compatibility for
> > compatibility's sake. This is sticking to old cruft. Caring to much
> > for some old userbase likely keep you from getting new users while old
> > ones slowly vanish. This also includes frontends. It is a dead end.
> If it's old cruft that works, I'm happy to stick to it.  If
> anyone wants to fix things under the hood, without breaking
> anything, or add new capabilities, great!

Hmm that's then the basic point where we differ. I do care if the
inside is clean and I rather like to remove features than add ones.
>From my point of view these are key factors to maintainability and
thus for the future of the code. One of the most important properties
of software is the question if the concepts are most simple and
implemented best possible. If at some time the concepts are found to
be imperfect, I really favor for change.

I do not like esr much, but he really hits the point in the chapter
``Popclient becomes Fetchmail'' in ``The Cathedral and the Bazaar''.

But I understand that compatibility keeps us from there, and that's
the real point where I hit against. I dislike that by maintaining
compatibiliy we result in a worse solution as wo could achieve when
losing compatibility.

> At this point, compatibility has got to be part of nmh's goal.
> It was even at its inception, according to docs/README.about:
>   "intended to be a (mostly) compatible drop-in replacement for MH"

I admit that providing a drop-in replacement is a fully valid goal. I
rather dislike the fact that this looking back holds us from going
forward. (It's more a general problem, though.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]