On 2016-10-24 10:01, Peter Mottram wrote:
On 24/10/16 00:11, Darren Duncan wrote:
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
If having two name spaces makes everyone happy and there are people
available to work on both then +1 from me as long as the existing
namespace is the more conservative one.
Does using two name spaces give any more security than git branches?
Any developments should be created in a new branch and only folded in
when everybody is happy, and with a back compatibility warranty.
Or are people proposing that the project is permanently forked?
Oh, and are there any volunteers to maintain the stable name space, if
there are to be two?
Cheers, Dave
_______________________________________________
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
