[Dbix-class] The email I didn't want to write.

[Matt S Trout]

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 11:50:24AM +0100, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 11:18 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
> >
> >...
> >
> >This seems like a surprising description of ilmari, given he holds the
> >first-come permissions for both DBIx::Class::Schema::Loader and SQL::Abstract
> 
> PAUSE disagrees:
> 
> rabbit at Ahasver:~$ curl -s
> http://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/06perms.txt.gz | zgrep
> '^SQL::Abstract,.*,f$'
> SQL::Abstract,MSTROUT,f

Ah, my mistake. Of course, given your treatment of and attitude towards
me, my point is if anything rather stronger in that case.
 
> >and conducted a huge and highly successful refactor of the former.
> 
> True, ilmari did work on S::L recently, but let's give credit where
> credit is due:

I was talking about during his first stint as DBICSL primary maintainer.

And, of course, given the entire point of refactoring is to make it easier
to maintain and extend a codebase, the fact that a number of people
successfully did so afterwards should rather be expected if the refactoring
were highly successful.
 
> >
> >...
> >
> >Meanwhile, we've now reached a point where seeing a ticket or patch sent in
> >by ribasushi tends to result in people ignoring it for a few days because
> >they need to work up the emotional stoicism required to deal with the chances
> >of it being a useful patch/ticket that happens to come with a free polemic.
> 
> Citation needed. Please provide an example where I have been abusive
> or even slightly unprofessional in a bugreport. Issue trackers are
> generally always part of the public record, so it shouldn't be a
> problem to back up what was said above.

I could go back and find somebody mentioning being made to feel like that
and to then cross-reference to the ticket, but that would require outing
them as having said so and given your general treatment of disagreement in
this thread I'm not convinced that's fair. People may choose to disregard
this assertion on my part as a result if they so wish.

But let me ask you a slightly different question, phrased relatively openly
to avoid prejudicing your answer - why do you no longer discuss issues on
perl5-porters?
 
> Matt, with all said above - can you please clarify:
> 
> >- who's actively attacked and/or alienated the owners of many of our downstream
> >  dependencies, including the crucial SQL::Abstract

Well, y'know, I came here for a governance discussion and honestly I'm
feeling pretty attacked right now.

"rabid badger"
"elephant in the room"
"enthusiast"
unfounded accusations of abuse of IRC OPER rights, quietly retracted without
an apology for the error

And, of course, we're rather dependent on SQL::Translator too and castaway
bowed out of this discussion some time back to avoid being attacked further.

My apologies for the single factual innacuracy; please consider that this
conversation might go more constructively if you were to ask me what I
meant about questions rather than simply assert that I'm wrong.

-- 
Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clue

http://shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/   http://twitter.com/shadowcat_mst/

Email me now on mst (at) shadowcat.co.uk and let's chat about how our CPAN
commercial support, training and consultancy packages could help your team.