On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:20:27 +0200, Peter Rabbitson
<rabbit+d...@rabbit.us> wrote:
On 10/23/2016 10:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley <a...@andybev.com>
wrote:
- Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower
time) "DBIC"
As far as i understood there was no circumstance under which he'd have
been involved further, at all.
The situation has changed. Notably I have taken up employment where (all
current plans considered) I will have to maintain at minimum a private
fork of DBIx::Class for my own use.
In light of several proposals on the list, the gist of my *revised*
position is:
- If there is sufficient interest in myself continuing to be the sole
gatekeeper/point of responsibility for the DBIx::Class distribution
and
- Folks are not concerned with neither my tangibly limited availability
going forward (I started a 40h/week job), nor with the potential
conflict of interest (i.e. that I might slip up and put $work concerns
ahead of the userbase)
and
- All current comaints are content with relinquishing their claims to
the namespace and continuing building up on my work outside of the
DBIx::Class distribution
Then, yes: I suppose you can consider this a proposal to avail myself to
keeping the preexisting actual setup unchanged for the foreseeable
future.
I was conflicted about this. But the more i think about this i lean
against it.
The main thing i want is to retain a development speed that keeps it
healthy enough to keep living on. Below a certain level of development
activity it will die because it won't be able to keep up with the world
changing around it, and dbic won't die gracefully either.
I'd love to see you stay involved if only because you're currently the one
person with the most intimate knowledge about DBIc.
On the other hand there is absolutely no guarantee as to the kind of
development speed there will be with you, other than "low".
Additionally, given that you, as per comments you made to me, see it as
your duty as an engineer to use every tool at your disposal to do what you
consider best for the engineering integrity of the software at hand.
You've made it sufficiently clear that you consider it the best for DBIc
to freeze, with at most emergency patches applied. Given the fact that
you've in the past proven that you will stop at nothing to achieve what
you consider necessary, i see no other choice other than to weigh into
every consideration i bring to this the fact that you may still be trying
to achieve your original goal.
Next, this feels like an extortion attempt to me. Whereas before it was a
clear "You don't like me anymore, so you won't get the toys i was planning
to make." it is now "I'll be making my own toys as well, but unless you
play by my rules only, you don't get to play with my toys."
You've also made no attempt to assure us that your further involvement
will resolve currently existing deadlocks ("wait until my branch is done")
for other contributors.
I know that going with the new governance and a team consisting mainly of
the developers of modules DBIc depends on is a bit of a gamble. How much
time will they actually find to contribute? What traps will they run into
due to not having your level of knowledge?
But weighing that up against all the aforementioned, and the fact that
your proposal would further tighten things to a single point of failure i
feel better with the gamble. Particularly since the proposed governance
structure does not preclude your further involvement at all, be it with
you being a contributor, or be it with you part of the core team
--
With regards,
Christian Walde
_______________________________________________
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
