[Dbix-class] Let's call things what they are 2/2

[Darren Duncan]

On 2016-10-11 10:30 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> To make it as clear as possible, and protect what I wrote so far from
> mis-interpretation:
>
> Given the long-established goals/priorities of this namespace, and mst's
> *technical* track record [1], it is my immutable opinion that DBIx::Class has no
> future as long as Matt Trout has any privileged (i.e. not a mere user) influence
> on DBIC's governance and direction.
>
> This is also why I am not granting Daren Duncan's request[2]. It makes no sense
> to do anything until there is unambiguous *lasting* clarity wrt the above.
>
> [1] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012282.html
> [2] http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/dbix-class/2016-October/012269.html

So the only good reason I can think of to not more effectively give the DBIC 
users the fruits of your labor to date, by (simply?) cutting a CPAN release, is 
that you are concerned that said changes as is might break something for users 
that currently works, and then someone with the desired stability mindset won't 
be around to deal with fixing that in a timely manner.

Whereas, if I am wrong and the primary reason against releasing your existing 
work isn't about the risk of breaking things for users, then I don't understand 
why the future DBIC governance has any bearing on what you can do right now.

If you could clarify that, I would appreciate it.

Regardless, I agree with what you said in "1/5 What is stability" and thank you 
for all your work over the years.

-- Darren Duncan