Hi! On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 08:18:13AM -0400, James E Keenan wrote: > 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.
-1 I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate, the "new" will not gain traction. Everybody loses. Greetings, domm -- #!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.plix.at for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$"-g&&print$_.$/} _______________________________________________ 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
