On 2017-11-09 10:50 PM, Alexander Hartmaier wrote:
What about DBD::MariaDB as that‘s the name of the OpenSource version these days?
No, MariaDB is simply a fork of MySQL. Both MariaDB and MySQL are Open Source.
Saying only MariaDB is open source is wrong.
I also disagree with using the Mari
Michael, why can't you accept moving forward under a new module name? Why does
it have to be under the old name? When people purposefully want to upgrade they
purposefully choose the new module name in order to do so. What is the actual
problem in that? -- Darren Duncan
On 2017-11-09 10:59
Hi Darren, Dan,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2017-11-09 8:32 AM, Dan Book wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me like the remaining option that can make everyone "happy" is
>> the
>> previously-suggested option of maintaining a legacy branch and doing new
>> development (reinst
On 2017-11-09 8:32 AM, Dan Book wrote:
It seems to me like the remaining option that can make everyone "happy" is the
previously-suggested option of maintaining a legacy branch and doing new
development (reinstating 4.042) in another branch which will be released as a
new distribution, like DBD::
Pali, there's a very simple solution to what you said. The old DBD::mysql does
not get further maintenance at all. It is simply frozen at the 4.041/3 state
forever. This serves the primary reason for that to exist, which is that people
whose package managers automatically upgrade to the highe
On 2017-11-09 12:54 AM, p...@cpan.org wrote:
On Tuesday 07 November 2017 13:19:23 Darren Duncan wrote:
The whole discussion on the mailing lists that I recall and participated in
seemed to consensus on branching DBD::sqlite in order to best satisfy the
~~~
It seems to me like the remaining option that can make everyone "happy" is
the previously-suggested option of maintaining a legacy branch and doing
new development (reinstating 4.042) in another branch which will be
released as a new distribution, like DBD::mysql2, by the same maintainers.
(I would
On Thursday 09 November 2017 14:26:01 Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 01:46 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> >On 09/11/2017 21:32, p...@cpan.org wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>What the complaints in this thread are focused on is what the *users*
> >>>want.
> >and the users want now, or will need in the near f
On 11/09/2017 09:54 AM, p...@cpan.org wrote:
As those people or projects misuse some internals of perl we cannot
guarantee anything such that which may be broken or changed by updating
any module from cpan or external source not related to DBD::mysql.
Pali. This "argument" applies to a large
On Thursday 09 November 2017 13:01:19 H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:32:00 +0100, p...@cpan.org wrote:
>
> > > Satisfy the above - and you do get the privilege of being a maintainer
> > > of a central module with 15+ years of history.
> >
> > Why should I be interested in maintai
On 11/09/2017 01:46 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On 09/11/2017 21:32, p...@cpan.org wrote:
What the complaints in this thread are focused on is what the *users*
want.
and the users want now, or will need in the near future, to build with
latest, stable and recommended versions of MariaDB and MySQL
On 09/11/2017 21:32, p...@cpan.org wrote:
>> What the complaints in this thread are focused on is what the *users* want.
and the users want now, or will need in the near future, to build with
latest, stable and recommended versions of MariaDB and MySQL.
Code changes all the time with everything
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:32:00 +0100, p...@cpan.org wrote:
> > Satisfy the above - and you do get the privilege of being a maintainer
> > of a central module with 15+ years of history.
>
> Why should I be interested in maintaining something from which users
> want impossible things?
"I can resi
On Thursday 09 November 2017 10:32:57 Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 09:54 AM, p...@cpan.org wrote:
> >
> >As those people or projects misuse some internals of perl we cannot
> >guarantee anything such that which may be broken or changed by updating
> >any module from cpan or external sourc
Hi! I'm responding below.
On Tuesday 07 November 2017 13:19:23 Darren Duncan wrote:
> Patrick and Pali, each of you please respond to the lists to confirm that
> what I say below is what you also understand is the primary plan, and if
> not, then say why not; in prior discussion I recall you agree
15 matches
Mail list logo
