Peter,
Regardless of what else happens, I very much would look forward to you finishing
up and shipping all the code changes you spent the last year working on. It
sounds like you're almost done them, and I don't want all that effort to go to
waste.
I trust you that this work would provide an island of stability of sorts, and a
version that people can continue to use for the extended term whether others
choose to just maintain that or choose to make major changes of their own, your
stable version would still be there as a useful legacy.
Given that your remaining time is limited, I request that you don't halt on the
code until the 8th as mentioned, unless you need to rest anyway, and use the
time you have to try and finish what you started and leave a better legacy.
Thank you for all your effort over the last years.
-- Darren Duncan
On 2016-10-03 2:32 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
On 10/03/2016 10:37 PM, David Golden wrote:
<snip>
In the ensuing discussion, Peter disclosed additional details about his
plans for the future of DBIC
Given the discussion generated way more interest than I anticipated, at this
point I am pausing all activity ( both code and administrative changes ), until
at least the 8th of October. I want to give ample time for all interested
parties to state their thoughts.
From my side, in order to highlight the main "point of contention" if you will,
I am pulling together several pieces from the aforementioned threads:
How much more concerning, then, to discover in the last few days
that you have seen your DBIC-related activities since December as
effectively winding up the project, rather than preparing to leave
it to others.
...
I know a bunch of the the pending changes are not ready to merge (or
"sub-par" if you will); this is because I haven't had the motivation to
put more work into them
...
I suspect if we managed to get all of the branches
people had planned that were delayed because riba's response to the proposed
features was "yes, but please wait for me to finish X first" done then that
work in itself might be a major release's worth.
...
While I get that its (n.b. DBIC) depended on a fair bit, I don't think that
means being *perfect* to the exclusion of all experimentation. I don't think
I've come across other bits of CPAN, apart from maybe the ones in core, that
attempt to be as rigorous in their perfection. Really, if people upgrade,
and encounter an issue .. they can either downgrade and wait, or pitch in
and help (or pay someone to).. this is open source after all.
While the project does not have a bright future under my (now likely moot) plan,
the approach indicated above is, in my opinion, the worst possible direction,
one I worked really hard to save this codebase from.
Nevertheless, if nobody else finds this problematic: I will step aside and let
an eager community, inadvertently suppressed all these years, steer this project
further.
Regards
RIBASUSHI
_______________________________________________
List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class
IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class
SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/
Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
