[Catalyst] Why does $c->stats require -Debug flag?

[Jon Schutz]

On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 04:16 -0500, Jonathan Rockway wrote:

> >
> > No problems, if that's what the Catalyst standard says; I must have
> > missed it.  Where is it?  I'd like to consult it on a number of
> > matters... please post the link.
> 
> Basically it's more of a "zeitgeist" than an actual document.  There are
> some things that the community has decided and "just do".  One is not
> breaking things or adding features between point releases.  We've fucked
> this up a number of times, but that doesn't really matter, the point is
> we try to fix our mistakes.  Compare this to other frameworks that just
> break things and say "fuck you".

A "standard" is not a standard unless it's written down as a common
reference for everybody to see.  People in the community come and go and
don't all have the same history, or longevity of memory for all the
"let's make this a standard" decisions that happen along the way.  This
is perhaps getting close to the crux of the problem.  Clearly Matt and
I, and you it seems, have a different concept of what the "standard" is.

Is there someone out there, then, with the right background, to set up a
Wiki page and document this zeitgeist?

> 
> > The fact that it's supposedly already in a stage of "completely broken"
> > kind of undermines that theory.
> 
> Not really.  It just means we need to fix it even sooner.
> 
> > I'm quite aware that I've spent more time debating the point than it
> > would have taken just to do this nugatory work, but then we wouldn't be
> > having this interesting discussion.  Can we put a timescale on it?  What
> > is the plan for release of 5.7013 and/or 5.80?
> 
> Can you either:
> 
>  * do this now
>  * or say you're not going to do it?
> 

No I can't do it now, but may well be able to if given a time frame. 

> That would make it easier for someone else to just get this done.  
> 
> Obviously you aren't obligated to do anything, because it's an open
> source project.  But when someone contributes changes, we release them,
> and then realize that there's a problem, it's nice to have the
> contributor around to fix the issues.  When they just disappear or argue
> against the project's conventions, it doesn't really look good, right?
> 
> The stats code is good stuff.  Why taint it with flamewars when it can
> be loved-by-everyone in just a few minutes? :)
> 

I thought we were having a discussion, an exchange of views, perhaps
challenging what the "conventions" really are - and I think so far
everyone contributing has managed to be fairly level about it.
Apologies if my statements have been taken the wrong way.

It seems to me that there are some underlying issues here which need to
be sorted out.  At least I think so.



-- 

Jon Schutz                        My tech notes http://notes.jschutz.net
Chief Technology Officer                        http://www.youramigo.com
YourAmigo