[neomutt-devel] mutt vs neomutt

Guyzmo z+mutt+neomutt at m0g.net
Mon Feb 13 20:36:22 CET 2017

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:13:40AM -0800, David Champion wrote:
> What platforms lose support?  I think it's OK to decide on a case by
> case basis, but here's what I expect:
> * anything no longer supported by the manufacturer
> * anything we can't get anyone to test on
> * OSes older than X for which there are updates (X is variable)
> * OSes with irremedial, significant security issues
> I would NOT extend this to making explicit choices to support only
> certain compilers -- that puts our support choices into other people's
> hands.  But I do think that, similarly, it's OK to decide ad hoc that a
> valuable patch that breaks support for Sun Compiler Suite for Solaris
> 2.5 is okay.  You can get gcc for that.

there's been a discussion about that at some point either on this ML or
on an issue, and as I really think there needs to be regression tests
and CI for mutt, we need to have a "tier 1"/"tier 2" support scheme:

- tier 1: everything we *actively* run tests on (Linux, .*BSD, Darwin, Mingw…)
- tier 2: everything we that we know we can compile on and do our best to not break

"Tier 1" would mean having a stamp "tested with compiler X on system Y",
and however you like it, we're likely to test only with clang and gcc,
which are working almost everywhere.

Also, I have been suggesting to rebase all the I/Os on libuv, which
would add asynchronous I/O (and network) handling, using a well and
thoroughly tested library (used by nodejs, neovim and many other

The downside of such a choice would be to have strong dependency, and
kill support for some exotic systems (not sure what those would be, I'm
not even sure the libuv team knows).



More information about the neomutt-devel mailing list