Re: getmail failing for messages with invalid uncode

Michael Grant <[email protected]> Sat, 16 Oct 2021 17:11:52 -0400
Newsgroups	gmane.mail.getmail.user
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 10:07:14AM -0600, Charles Cazabon wrote:
> > or take any other initiative to provide Python3 support.
> 
> For fuck's sake, please see the list archive.  I *have* taken the initiative
> to refactor getmail to run on (only) Python 3.

Ok cool.  So some work has been done, cool.  I have not looked in the
archives.

Guys, just some observations here if I may...

It seems to me that ultimately getting getmail to work in python3
would be a good thing and it seems like everyone agrees on this point.
The force to move to python3 is there.  Debian isn't going to allow
this package into the packages repository in it's current state and no
amount of complaining about it is going to change that no matter how
strongly you argue the case. Charles, nobody is saying you are wrong.
We just need to move on now.

It seems like Roland and Remco have done something that works except
for the bug that I ran into which he says is fixed.  I mean, I did not
even realize I was using their version until the other day!

Just a quick look at the directory struture of both, they look very
similar.  It does not look like they re-architected getmail.

I haven't looked deeply at what Roland and Remco done.  Just diffing
some files, there are a lot of line by line changes that are the same
line but in Python 3.  There's some chunks of code that differe but
these may be just the different base versions.  My initial assessment
here is with some cooperation, maybe things could be merged quite
quickly.

I know Charles, you want to refactor it and clean it up when you move
to python 3 and that's great.  How terrible would it be if you and
Roland took the intermediate step to work together fully get to Python
3 for now and then over time at leisure refactor and clean it up and
maybe even write it if you want?  If the logic is the same or nearly
so, maybe it wouldn't be so hard to support and it seems like Roland
is there to help do this.

Charles says the patch huge and buggy.  Maybe there is something that
can be done to look over it and see if the logic can be brought closer
to the current version 5 code but in python 3?  Can the patch be split
so it's easier to understand?  Can we sit down together and look at
the two repos line by line in diff?  A good first step here would be
for Roland to take in the changes from 5.15 and get the code to be as
close as possible to it to make it easier to look at side by side.

From all this banter between you, it sounds like Charles is willing to
consider the patch if it were easier for him to integrate and it
sounds like Roland is ready and willing to help.  What needs to be
done to make this happen?  I see something positive here if you guys
can work this out.

It seems to me that Roland and Remco were trying to do you a favor but
it seems like it annoyed you in the way it was done.  The fact is that
they, like me, use getmail and wanted dearly to continue using it and
wanted it and wanted other people to continue to easily use it from
the package repo and did what they did not to hurt you in any way but
to try and help.

I offer to facilitate this merge if possible.  I'll host a meeting on
jitsi or wherever mutually conveinient to talk find a reasonable way
forward.  Maybe we could just diff file by file the two trees on a
jitsi call and talk through it.  This will almost certainly be quicker
than Charles painfully reverse engineering someone's changes on his
own.

If nothing is done, eventually Charles will one day convert this to
Python 3 and Roland's version will be a second version with the same
name but potentially very different functionality.  This would be even
worse.  In that case, Roland's version probably should have a
different name and Debian should probably not have a transitional
package for getmail.

So people, let's be reasonable!  Can you guys work together or at
least come to an agreement on the way forward?  Maybe we can go
through the code side by side and see what exactly has changed?  If
things are so radically different (which I don't think they are!) then
agree on a new name and part ways and move on.

I propose we meet on jitsi, if you all are agreeable, name some dates
and times to me over the next week or so.  I'm in London, UK.  It looks
like from the getmail site, Charles is in Saskatchewan which is
US/Canada Central time and it seems like Roland is probably in
Austria.  So sometime early in the day in Central time so as not too
late in Europe seems like it would work best--if you all agree to
meet.

> > > And probably start your version at 1.
> 
> Please do not tell me how to run MY OWN SOFTWARE PROJECT THAT I HAVE
> MAINTAINED FOR A QUARTER OF A CENTURY.

The version 1 comment was not aimed at you Charles.  It doesn't matter anyway.

> > It should also have the same name on the system.
> 
> Your software should NOT have the same name as my software, even if --
> especially if -- it is a fork.

This I would agree with, as a different package, it should not have
the same executable name.  A similar name like or neogetmail or
something like that, ok, but not the same exact name.

But if getmail were officially updated to python 3, hopefully this
wouldn't be an issue and getmail6 would simply go away.

If nothing is possible, I'll leave you guys alone.

Michael Grant
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)