[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

[Darren Duncan]

On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote:
>  > I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2
> being opt in. +1
>
> I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to get
> informed consent from all the existing DBIx::Class users to ensure that they
> understand they are getting bleeding-edge code. Moving to a more risky
> configuration must always be done intentionally.

Those are my thoughts exactly.  If DBIC ever started using multiple namespaces 
to distinguish LTS from bigger changes, the LTS should always have the existing 
name.  Users should always get the "safe" option by default and explicitly 
opt-in to risk, rather than the opposite.  This assumes the use of multiple 
namespaces, and is inapplicable if only one name is used. -- Darren Duncan