Re: [Nmh-workers] Understanding nmh (aka. What's the goal) [ really non-ASCII message bodies ]

[Harald Geyer]

> >Well, I always considered the current behaviour a bug, but I didn't say
> >anything, because the nmh-way of software development seemed pretty 
> >inefficient and I didn't want to look at the code myself either.
> 
> We have a "way" of software development?  When did that happen? :-)
> 
> In all seriousness ... what, exactly, do you mean?  I guess our current
> way is, "Anyone who's interested, please contribute!".  I don't see how
> that's really much different than other open-source packages.

Sure, but reading this list for several years I have the impression,
that more effort goes into finding consensus than on writing code.

Don't get me wrong: So far I wrote one patch for nmh which eventually
got accepted (some much edited version anyway). I learned a lot from
this about programming in C and I really appreciate all the
constructive feedback.

All I wanted to say is: This situation encourages people to think of
work arounds instead of reporting bugs. So the fact that no bugs were
reported is very weak evidence that everybody agrees on the current
behaviour.

Harald