removing mutt patches

From: Derek Schrock <>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2023 22:33:05 UTC
tl;dr Removing feature patches in mail/mutt!  Do you care?

A recent bug [1] has been created with a claim that one of the remote
patches QUOTE_PATCH [2] causes issues even without using the feature.
This patch was originally a vvv patch [3] left unmaintained then later 
taken over by some capacity by va [4].

While it was taken over (mainly for context updates?) I don't think it's
fully maintained since there's still parts of it that fail at build
time.  However, this got me thinking that maybe it's time to just drop
the quote patch all together... Thinking some more why not all remote
patches... Or maybe all patches all together.  I'm not really looking to
maintain feature patches.  That's best left to fight upstream to

I feel these patches were added maybe by request or maybe they were used
by the previous mail/mutt maintainers.  Trying to track down some
patches removed for reasons/requests normally just lead to a
non-descriptive commit of the inclusion so this might be all

However, given that some of the patches are part of neomutt I think that
if you need these features you can either install that or build locally
with local patches or better yet work with upstream to include to
directly to mutt.

I've always wanted to drop all patches since I don't use any of the
features so in turn don't have a good means to test however I've kept
them in for legacy reasons.

Even though the mailing list will be a limited set of users I think it
might be a good (or at least the best) way to test user feedback.  Maybe
poking the mutt-user mailing list too could be a good idea.

However, with them removed it only means faster port releases and better
well tested packages.

So do any of the ports/pkg mutt users deeply depend on any feature
patches from the port and would the world end if you didn't have them?