[DBIx-Class-Devel] people/abraxxa/doc_plain_value_removal

[Jess Robinson]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:58:37 +0100, Alexander Hartmaier  
<alex.hartmaier at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Jess Robinson
> <castaway at desert-island.me.uk>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey Alex,
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:00:06 +0100, Alexander Hartmaier <
>> alex.hartmaier at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I've started working on my first todo item [1] to remove the  
>> plain_value
>>> bind value workaround from the docs, please review the changes I've  
>>> split
>>> up into three commits in people/abraxxa/doc_plain_**value_removal.
>>>
>>> [1]  
>>> https://gist.github.com/**abraxxa/5213040<https://gist.github.com/abraxxa/5213040>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be taking the "remove" a bit too literally. I don't think  
>> its
>> a good idea to remove the example from the FAQ completely, instead it
>> should be updated with an example of the correct/current way to solve  
>> that
>> problem.
>>
>> The FAQ and the Cookbook are different types of documentation, and its  
>> ok
>> if they repeat information found elsewhere.. DRY does not apply in
>> documentation, at least not when one is a short "It looks like this" and
>> the other is a longer more comprehensive explanation.
>>
>> Jess
>>
> Thanks for reviewing it Jess!
> In this case the docs where identical and someone, I don't remember who,  
> in
> #dbic-cabal encouraged me in my decision to remove it. Feel free to add a
> commit undoing one commit or parts of it, that's why we work in branches
> that get squashed before applying them to master.

Is this the "identical" piece?  
http://git.shadowcat.co.uk/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=dbsrgits/DBIx-Class.git;a=blob;f=lib/DBIx/Class/Manual/Cookbook.pod;h=3ccdc29a0a464f3383feb4e22ca50dac296540df;hb=0b2f6698582aacff9933e7284d38e4897223e3fc#l415

That's a much longer explanation with details, whereas the FAQ had a nice  
short example. I'd prefer we keep it. (And then add a link to the longer  
version)

Would rolling back the commit be the solution? That piece in the FAQ looks  
like it has the old style content, so surely it needs repairing to contain  
the new style? I'd prefer you do it, as you're working with it already.

Jess