[Dbix-class] GOVERNANCE: Aggregation and conclusion

[Patrick Meidl]

On Mon, Oct 31 2016, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari at ilmari.org> wrote:

> 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
> >>> proposal,
> >>
> >> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the
> >> results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier
> >> suggestions[2], 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.

-1 for the same reason.

    patrick

-- 
Patrick Meidl, Mag.
Senior Expert Software Engineering

IST - Institute of Science and Technology Austria
Am Campus 1
A-3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

R I21.EG.115 (Building West, BT01)
T +43 2243 9000 1313
E pmeidl at ist.ac.at
W https://icp.ist.ac.at/search/users/pmeidl