[Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion
Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
ilmari at ilmari.org
Mon Oct 31 12:42:44 GMT 2016
James E Keenan <jkeen at verizon.net> writes:
> On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout <mst at shadowcat.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
>> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the
>> results. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier
>> suggestions, which several others also seemed to like.
>> But, in that case, I propose:
>> - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace, continuing to maintain and
>> tighten that code base. The aim would be a rock-solid module with a
>> very conservative rate of change and new features.
>> - A new namespace DBIx::Class2 is created, owned and operated by MST's
>> governance+core team proposal. Developers that want to create new
>> features do so in this namespace.
>> I do not understand the technicalities, but from what I have seen
>> discussed, people would still be able to use DBIx::Class::* modules in
>> both namespaces.
> -1 on this proposal from me. I favor getting on with the existing proposal.
-1 from me too. I think forking will harm both sides, as the
already-limited contributor pool gets fragmented across two code bases.
"The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -- Skud's Law
"Never formulate a law or axiom that you're not prepared to live with
the consequences of." -- Skud's Meta-Law
More information about the DBIx-Class