[Dbix-class] Status of DBIx::Class

[Peter Rabbitson]

On 07/17/2017 01:20 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:46:47PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
>> On 07/17/2017 12:33 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
>>> I'm currently working towards understanding the impact of the various
>>> backwards incompatible changes riba made on master
>>
>> There are to the best of my knowledge *no incompatible changes*
>> compared to 0.082840 currently on CPAN. If there are - these are
>> bugs, and I will fix them as promised back in October.
> 
> Quoth the documentation of DBIx::Class::Schema::SanityChecker -
> 
> =begin quote
> 
> Starting with C<v0.082900> DBIC is much more aggressive in calling the
> underlying non-sugar methods directly, which in turn means that almost all
> user-side overrides of sugar methods are never going to be invoked. These
> situations are now reliably detected and reported individually (you may
> end up with a lot of output on C<STDERR> due to this).
> 
> Note: B<ANY AND ALL ISSUES> reported by this check B<*MUST*> be resolved
> before upgrading DBIC in production. Malfunctioning business logic and/or
> B<SEVERE DATA LOSS> may result otherwise.
> 
> =end quote

This is a blanket documentation placeholder, aimed at 
usually-warning-ignoring audience. As such it is deliberately 
over-the-top, which is hardly unheard-of practice. ( In reality almost 
all the issues took place in 0.082801, and have already been affecting 
codebases for nearly 3 years, which I explicitly detail in my writeups. 
What *is* new in master is the warning system itself ).

Please, for the love of sanity, assure the list your technical concerns 
are based on something more than skimming the POD? For instance I would 
expect a maintainer to at least have examined the changesets made in t/ 
and xt/ and to read and understand the known downstream effects detailed 
in the following commit messages:
https://github.com/dbsrgits/dbix-class/commit/12e7015a
https://github.com/dbsrgits/dbix-class/commit/dc7d8991

> 
> I don't regard being cautious 

You are not "being cautious". You are being deliberately vague and 
misleading (or worse). Your position requires you to do better.