Hi all,
Just caught up with this all. Been a long time. My business is a big user
of dbic and Cataylst, so I'm eager for all to live on and be managed well.
Having worked with Matt via the community and commercially since 2005, I
and my business +1 this. It's just like creating a company board wit
+1 for the fork
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Darren Duncan
wrote:
> My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short
> term, with the following clarifications or amendments.
>
> 1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to the
> DBIx::Class namespac
>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]
My current thought is that a fork may be the best solution in the short term,
with the following clarifications or amendments.
1. Peter Rabbitson would have the exclusive PAUSE permissions to the DBIx::Class
namespace and would continue to perform releases of his work on it as he wanted
to do.
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 11:22:32 -0400 David Golden wrote:
> Please read the section entitled "=== Future Plans" in this message
> from Peter:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.modules/2016/10/msg96174.html
>
> What I suggested was not a hypothetical "train-smash" intended to
> scare you or other
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote:
> > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant
> > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute.
> >
> > I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your prop
+1
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:22:07AM +, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout 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 merel
On 31 October 2016 at 12:18, 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 wrote:
>>>
>>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
>>> proposal,
>>
>>
>> TBH, I didn't even realise I was making a propos
I am in favor of Andy's proposal (forking). My current understanding is
there are developers interested in working in both directions, and this
proposal permits that to happen.
If the projects diverge, so be it. If one ceases to be actively
maintained, so be it. This is not unusual in OSS or CP
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:18:59 Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote:
> > So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant
> > Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute.
> >
> > I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your proposal
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 10:12:27 -0400 David Golden wrote:
> So to be absolutely clear, it sounds like proposal "B" is to grant
> Peter the unilateral power initially in dispute.
>
> I.e. he could – on arbitrary day N after your proposal is adopted –
> merge his remaining work, transfer permissions t
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > Could you please clarify your proposal with details on that front and
> > what is to happen should Peter be unable or unwilling to continue
> > working on DBIC?
>
> It would be no different to any other module. Ribasushi nominates
> some
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 08:39:29 -0400 David Golden wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>
> > - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace
> >
> >
> Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other
> maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace
On 10/31/2016 01:39 PM, David Golden wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley mailto:a...@andybev.com>> wrote:
- RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace
Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other
maintainers relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:22:07 +0100, Andrew Beverley
wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote:
Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
proposal,
But, in that case, I propose:
I think mst was referring to your plan of having an "A v B" vote.
--
With r
-1 from me, too.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
> James E Keenan writes:
>
>> On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote:
Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
proposal,
On 31 October 2016 at 11:22, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout 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 o
+1 on this proposal.
everyone should be happy with this. From reading silently all the proposals
in this thread, it is clear that we all want DBIC to move forward, if that
means letting RIBA have the namespace and MST and the new governance to be
able to work on DBIC freely, then separating the na
On Mon, Oct 31 2016, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> James E Keenan writes:
>
> > On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> >> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout wrote:
> >>> Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
> >>> proposal,
> >>
> >> TBH, I didn't
James E Keenan writes:
> On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout 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 w
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> - RIBASUSHI retains the current namespace
>
>
Peter previously said that he would only continue if all other maintainers
relinquished their claims to the DBIC namespace [1]. Could you please
clarify your proposal with details on that fron
On 10/31/2016 07:22 AM, Andrew Beverley wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout 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 earlie
On Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:43:31 Matt S Trout 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 see
23 matches
Mail list logo