[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development
peter at sysnix.com
Tue Oct 4 18:20:51 GMT 2016
On 04/10/16 19:08, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote:
>> I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of
>> you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for the fights over its
>> direction and saw you as the voice of reason, patience, and vision.
>> Regardless of work done since, I see you as the owner. I was unaware
>> there was as much of a schism as there apparently is.
>> I don't know which approach is better. I feel the "permanent
>> development ban" you assert is misrepresenting the situation.
> Well, I'm not sure how else I can interpret riba's call for a 'project
> freeze', especially given that in
> he appears to feel that the previous contributors attempting to continue
> the project is "the worst possible direction, one I worked really hard to
> save this codebase from."
My reading is more that this:
/> Really, if people upgrade, />/and encounter an issue .. they can either downgrade and wait, or pitch in />/and help (or pay someone to).. this is open source after all./
is not a viable option if the breakage causes data loss. Problems at the
data layer are simply unacceptable and can result in major financial
damage and people being fired. Some projects can afford to be much more
bleeding edge but I feel that DBIx::Class needs to be paranoid about
what is accepted in core. After all there are other options to allow
features to be added without touching core.
DBIx::Class has gained a reputation for being a solid piece of
infrastructure which can be trusted and ribasushi has been instrumental
in getting it to that point. Care must be taken to ensure that this
expectation of reliability is not lost in favour of feature bloat and
More information about the DBIx-Class