On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote:
> I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2
being opt in. +1
I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to get
informed consent from all the existing DBIx::Class users to ensure that they
understand they are getting bleeding-edge code. Moving to a more risky
configuration must always be done intentionally.
Those are my thoughts exactly. If DBIC ever started using multiple namespaces
to distinguish LTS from bigger changes, the LTS should always have the existing
name. Users should always get the "safe" option by default and explicitly
opt-in to risk, rather than the opposite. This assumes the use of multiple
namespaces, and is inapplicable if only one name is used. -- Darren Duncan
_______________________________________________
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
