On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout <m...@shadowcat.co.uk> wrote:
Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
proposal,
TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a proposal until I saw the
results[1]. I was merely bringing up one of Dave's earlier
suggestions[2], which several others also seemed to like.
But, in that case, I propose:
- RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace, continuing to maintain and
tighten that code base. The aim would be a rock-solid module with a
very conservative rate of change and new features.
- A new namespace DBIx::Class2 is created, owned and operated by MST's
governance+core team proposal. Developers that want to create new
features do so in this namespace.
I do not understand the technicalities, but from what I have seen
discussed, people would still be able to use DBIx::Class::* modules in
both namespaces.
-1 on this proposal from me. I favor getting on with the existing proposal.
Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan
_______________________________________________
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
