On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Jameson Graef Rollins
<jrollins@finestructure.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01 2012, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
>> I guess we should clarify what it means to accept some code into
>> contrib. Do we accept to maintain it even after the original contributor
>> loses interest?
>
> I don't know, but this is one of the reasons I'm against having
> "contrib" stuff in the notmuch repo.  If it's not part of the stuff
> we're willing to release in source tarballs or binary packages then it
> should probably be in a separate repo.

+1.

I think having the bindings in the tree and including them in build
system is reasonable, since they're interfaces into the core of the
notmuch library. We should be careful of what bindings we accept in to
the tree (I don't want to fix Fortran bindings ;-) ), but the small
set we have seems maintainable.

It's harder to make a case for contrib. Keeping stuff that relies on
notmuch up-to-date is a nice idea, but doing so creates more work for
developers working on the library and core, since they have to fix a
bunch of code they're not that familiar with. Things that are actively
used (e.g. alot) will be updated quickly anyway since their developers
will tend to keep up with what notmuch is doing.

-- Adam