(I've been absent from the discussion since sunday night because I've been
thinking through and then writing this up; please believe me when I say that
I really didn't enjoy the process, but could no longer see how to avoid it)
So, up until a few days ago, the conversation seemed to be about estab
On 1 Nov 2016, at 19:48, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> I think a fork will not work. The "old" DBIC will stagnate, the "new"
> will not gain traction. Everybody loses.
Agreed. Another,
-1
Charlie
--
Charlie Garrison
github.com/cngarrison metacpan.org/author/CNG
Totally agree with Ashley there, could not have said it better myself
"Ashley Pond V" wrote:
>
> +1 for the fork. It's the only way to eat our cake and have it;
> affording different lines of development and culture without friction
> and strife.
___
Lis
+1 for the fork. It's the only way to eat our cake and have it;
affording different lines of development and culture without friction
and strife.
Since very few, if any, of you were here at the beginning, you
probably don't know that this is essentially how DBIx::Class was born;
as an indirect for
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 wrote:
> > > Otherwise, I would suggest that you turn your plan into a full
> > > proposal,
> >
> > TBH, I didn't even realise I was
