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

[Peter Mottram]

On 24/10/16 00:11, Darren Duncan wrote:
> 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
>
If having two name spaces makes everyone happy and there are people
available to work on both then +1 from me as long as the existing
namespace is the more conservative one.