[Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

Leo Lapworth leo at cuckoo.org
Mon Oct 24 12:40:15 GMT 2016

On 24 October 2016 at 12:20, Peter Rabbitson <rabbit+dbic at rabbit.us> wrote:
> On 10/23/2016 10:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley <andy at andybev.com>
>> wrote:
>>> - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower
>>> time) "DBIC"
>> As far as i understood there was no circumstance under which he'd have
>> been involved further, at all.
> The situation has changed. Notably I have taken up employment where (all
> current plans considered) I will have to maintain at minimum a private fork
> of DBIx::Class for my own use.

Sounds like a bad position to start from, you should introduce the company
to standards and working with CPAN, it's a great place where people
can work together to achieve a standard set of tools so we don't all
have to relearn every module when we start a new job.

> In light of several proposals on the list, the gist of my *revised* position
> is:
> - If there is sufficient interest in myself continuing to be the sole
> gatekeeper/point of responsibility for the DBIx::Class distribution
>   and
> - Folks are not concerned with neither my tangibly limited availability
> going forward (I started a 40h/week job), nor with the potential conflict of
> interest (i.e. that I might slip up and put $work concerns ahead of the
> userbase)

Isn't this the argument you put against a community effort, where
people might put new features ahead of stability?

This sounds like the worst of all options.

I'd rather such a key project as DBIx::Class was managed by a team of people,
dedicated to stability and clarity of process, not a single point of failure or


More information about the DBIx-Class mailing list