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

[Dave Howorth]

On 2016-10-24 10:01, Peter Mottram wrote:
> 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.

Does using two name spaces give any more security than git branches?

Any developments should be created in a new branch and only folded in 
when everybody is happy, and with a back compatibility warranty.

Or are people proposing that the project is permanently forked?

Oh, and are there any volunteers to maintain the stable name space, if 
there are to be two?

Cheers, Dave