James E Keenan <jk...@verizon.net> writes: > 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.
-1 from me too. I think forking will harm both sides, as the already-limited contributor pool gets fragmented across two code bases. - ilmari -- "The surreality of the universe tends towards a maximum" -- Skud's Law "Never formulate a law or axiom that you're not prepared to live with the consequences of." -- Skud's Meta-Law _______________________________________________ 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