Opened 17 years ago

Closed 17 years ago

Last modified 17 years ago

#2279 closed task (wontfix)

Mutt - Use Dev or Stable?

Reported by: Randy McMurchy Owned by: blfs-book@…
Priority: normal Milestone:
Component: BOOK Version: SVN
Severity: normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Currently the BLFS book uses a version of development version of Mutt that is older than the most recent stable version.

Additionally, there are more recent versions of the dev than we are using. We really need to update, but to which version?

Change History (11)

comment:1 by Ag. Hatzimanikas, 17 years ago

1.5.13

This is what I use for some months now,and it looks stable enough.

I will try to provide a patch within the next days to update mutt to the most recent version. The changes are trivial.

comment:2 by Randy McMurchy, 17 years ago

I suppose you'll need to explain what this new dev version offers that the newest "stable" version (note that the version Ag is recommending is only one month newer than the latest stable release) doesn't offer.

Using a dev version of Mutt should be considered a one-time deal. Now that recent stable versions are available, we need to determine why these would not be preferred over the dev versions. And only a really good reason would probably be accepted. :-)

comment:3 by Ag. Hatzimanikas, 17 years ago

There is no development action for years in the 1.4 branch. All the distributions I know they ship with the development version as their default. The code in the 1.5 branch is quite stable and very well tested.

Please don't ask why the mutt developers,doesn't release a new version based on that branch.

This version (1.5.13) is almost six months old and by the time that Blfs will get a new release it would be safe to consider this version "stable enough".If a bug found until we release,then we can just backport the fix and done with it.

And besides that (which for me are good enough reasons to continue to use development versions),the note in the mutt instructions (why we use a development version) still applies for the 1.4.2.2.

The 1.4.2.2 was out there when we have decided to include the development version in the Book instead of stable. In fact 1.4.2.2 is still the 1.4.2 release with 2 backported patches to fix 2 vulnerabilities.

And I don't know anyone in developer stuff (besides Archaic),that is using the stable version.

And to be honest,I hate to change my config just to test the stable version. It's one of the most critical applications in my systems and I don't want to make changes that will affect my daily activity.

Oh and I guess,we can close the #2072.

comment:4 by dnicholson@…, 17 years ago

The major reason for using 1.5 was just listed by Ag. 1.4.2 is really old and 1.4.2.2 is 2 commits to fix security vulnerabilities over the past 2 years.

And people keep forgetting where the change initated from. It was Archaic, who traditionally was one of the most conservative developers, who just flat out said 1.5.11 is stable. And I know for a fact that he uses mutt religiously. He sent me his muttrc once because I can't figure out a thing in that program and it was like 300 lines long.

So, that was the reason why we started using 1.5.x. I hardly use mutt, so I'd have to defer to someone else on a decision. But Ag seems really experienced with it, and we've never had a complaint in a ticket or on the list about mutt-1.5.x.

comment:5 by Ag. Hatzimanikas, 17 years ago

I am using 1.5.13 since the day a and it never gave me a single problem.

The application runs in 2 boxes,one locally and one in a ssh connection,and it stays open all the time usually for more than 10 days,sometimes close to month,without any problem.

The behavior is exactly as expected (keys,config,hooks,memory/cpu usage,every single thing).

This thing is damn close guys.There are some very experience people,over mutt-dev and mutt-users and believe me if a serious problem found in the road the fix will come very quickly and will go to the book as soon as possible.

The 1.4 stable branch is still and will ever be usable for some old stubborn unix hackers but it should be considered as future completed and like such pretty much outdated.

in reply to:  5 comment:6 by Ag. Hatzimanikas, 17 years ago

Replying to Ag.Hatzim:

This thing is damn close guys.

'/close/stable/'

comment:7 by Randy McMurchy, 17 years ago

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

Closing this ticket as my question was (I suppose poorly phrased for one) more directed to the fact that the book uses a dev version of Mutt that is *older* than the newest stable version, yet we continue to use a dev version in the book. This is contrary to policy, but I suppose it doesn't matter.

I am just confused as to why we use a dev version when a newer stable version is available. I cannot phrase this any better to try an get an answer, so I suppose I'll just not worry about it.

However, it just sends mixed signals to use a dev version when there is a stable version available, yet we are stuck using "stable" HTML Tidy and FFmpeg when even those package developers say to use development versions.

comment:8 by dnicholson@…, 17 years ago

The "newer" stable version in this case is kind of a misnomer. It's only newer because a patch was backported and a release made after it was in a released 1.5 version.

I'd like to switch to using CVS versions of tidy and ffmpeg. I originally made a big huff about tidy I think because I was reacting about something else. The fact is that we just can't follow the "use stable released version" rule to the letter because it doesn't work with some projects.

comment:9 by Ag. Hatzimanikas, 17 years ago

I am catching up with my mail,so today I saw some messages in mutt-dev mailing list that are very interesting and will get us out from the quandary.

Thomas Roessler the long time mutt maintainer gave up for the favor of Brendan Cully.

Here is the first words by Brendan.

I intend to cut 1.5.14 this weekend. I'd like to make 1.5.15 the last
proper dev release for 1.6 - that is, feature-freeze after
1.5.15. So, I'd like to hear once again which patches everyone would
like to see in 1.6 (and which patches people object to)

Now there is a long discussion about features and patches that should be included in 1.6. There many patches floating around for ages (debian mostly) and there was some very interesting participation included Thomas Dickey (the xterm/ncurses developer).

So let's wait what will come up from this. Meanwhile I am proposing to stick with the development version that is now in the book.

comment:10 by dnicholson@…, 17 years ago

Thanks for the update, Ag.

comment:11 by (none), 17 years ago

Milestone: 6.2.1

Milestone 6.2.1 deleted

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.