Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

And you think that when there are not even enough contributors for DBIC itself that will get better when there are two project instead of just one? I doubt that... On 2016-10-24 08:23, Renvoize, Martin wrote: +1 for the DBIC2 namespace and the split being original stable dbic on the primary sp

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I think the proposal is that LTS continues with BDFL and the 2x version uses the new protocol. As for two git branches: this is about cpan, not git. Typical projects will surely not be pulling from git, and I would not expect projects that do to have any expectations of stability (as it is today.)

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 10/24/2016 07:11 AM, Leo Lapworth wrote: Can we agree on the new governance... first? Then IF (and so far no one seems to have suggested plans for this) there is ever a change that could cause instability or break backwards compat or has any major risk, the voting policy can be enacted to wo

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 23 October 2016 at 23:11, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote: >> >> > I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the >> dbic2 >> being opt in. +1 >> >> I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to get >> informed co

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-24 10:01, Peter Mottram wrote: On 24/10/16 00:11, Darren Duncan wrote: On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2 being opt in. +1 I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to ge

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 24/10/16 00:11, Darren Duncan wrote: > On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote: >> > I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the >> dbic2 >> being opt in. +1 >> >> I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way >> to get >> informed consent from

[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

+1 for the DBIC2 namespace and the split being original stable dbic on the primary space. I think this give's the most stability to the users, and at the same time give the development team the most space for innovating into new and exciting area's should they wish to. Seems like a win-win to me!

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-23 3:04 PM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2 being opt in. +1 I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to get informed consent from all the existing DBIx::Class users to ensure that they under

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-23 1:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote: On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley wrote: - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower time) "DBIC" As far as i understood there was no circumstance under which he'd have been involved further, at all. His

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

> I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2 being opt in. +1 I don't see how it could credibly be the other way. There is no way to get informed consent from all the existing DBIx::Class users to ensure that they understand they are getting bleeding-edge code. Moving

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I also like the idea of default dbic being the stable one, and the dbic2 being opt in. +1 -- sent from a rotary phone, pardon my brevity On Oct 23, 2016 1:21 PM, "Andrew Beverley" wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:04 -0400 David Golden wrote: > [...] > > * DBIx::Class (DBIC) – Peter's work pr

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley wrote: - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower time) "DBIC" As far as i understood there was no circumstance under which he'd have been involved further, at all. His plan, as far as i saw it stated, was to r

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 04:30:12PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote: > I am of a similar mind. I want to have both code paths and this seems > like the only way to do that. I worry a lot about the costs to the ecosystem of split effort. There's a lot of DBIx::Class::* out there, On the other hand usin

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Andrew Beverley wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:04 -0400 David Golden wrote: > [...] >> * DBIx::Class (DBIC) – Peter's work provides a capstone, with only bug >> fixes thereafter >> * DBIx::Class2 (DBIC2) – new feature development, with lower stability >> expect

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 04:07:04 -0400 David Golden wrote: [...] > * DBIx::Class (DBIC) – Peter's work provides a capstone, with only bug > fixes thereafter > * DBIx::Class2 (DBIC2) – new feature development, with lower stability > expectations > > Some of the benefits I could see from this: > > (1)

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-12 12:14 AM, Hartmaier Alexander wrote: On 2016-10-06 21:15, Darren Duncan wrote: On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues: "I suspect what we need to

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-06 21:15, Darren Duncan wrote: On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues: "I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more decentral

[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

(Note: most of the below was written before Riba's most recent message, and is therefore perhaps now moot. Sorry I didn't get it out sooner.) I rarely email a list or maintainer; I'm one of the many out here in DarkPAN who only occasionally check-in on the mostly public Perl world. Anytime I do e

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > David, given the decisions the PAUSE admins are faced with (see below) > encourage you to inquire for more info on individual points that seem > unclear. I will answer such inquiries in individual subthreads. Everything seems pretty clear a

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 10/03/2016 10:37 PM, David Golden wrote: For those who don't know me, I'm DAGOLDEN on CPAN and I've joined this list in my capacity as a PAUSE administrator. This email is mainly addressed to the PAUSE admins, however I think the (hopefully) following discussion is

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

My message was written solely to be a retraction of and apology for what I felt was an unfounded accusation I'd inadvertantly made against you, because I prefer to set the record straight when I make such a mistake. -- Matt S Trout - Shadowcat Systems - Perl consulting with a commit bit and a clu

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 10/07/2016 03:08 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:32:18PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: Given the discussion generated way more interest than I anticipated, at this point I am pausing all activity ( both code and administrative changes ), until at least the 8th of October. I

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:32:18PM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > Given the discussion generated way more interest than I anticipated, at > this point I am pausing all activity ( both code and administrative > changes ), until at least the 8th of October. I want to give ample time > for all int

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I’ve been watching this conversation unfold from the sidelines, and as an extremely infrequent user of DBIC (but highly interested Perl community member and sometimes Open Source community manager), I haven’t felt the need to participate before now — but I’m afraid there’s something that’s being

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-06 8:43 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues: "I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more decentralised - have it be a specific framework buil

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:24:59PM +0200, Hartmaier Alexander wrote: > A big part was also his and mst's plan to use Data::Query in DBIx::Class > which they seen to have abandoned without communicating it. Not so much abandoned as I basically got locked out as well and entirely lost motivation to

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:49PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote: > That would be good, also in light with how that sentence continues: > > "I suspect what we need to try and achieve is to get DBIC a bit more > decentralised - have it be a specific framework build atop a > more-like-Plack-for-DB-stuf

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Sorry for replying that late but I was away for two month and didn't find the right words in the short peroids of time I had. castaway let me quote her answer in the mail conversation between David Golden and the current PAUSE maintainers of DBIC that preceded this one: Having read the last fe

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I've not got much to add that hasn't already said, except that my current priority is stability and performance over feature improvements. Other than that, I would like to publicly thank Ribasushi for the huge amount of effort and dedication he has put into the project. Not just the code commits,

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:20:51 +0100, Peter Mottram wrote: On 04/10/16 19:08, Matt S Trout wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote: I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for the fights over i

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Wednesday October 5 2016 11:44:47 AM Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > >> It is now much harder to advance either of these points. > > > > Why? > > Because now that you causally dropped an insinuation that a part of the > work I put into DBIC itself was

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:28 AM, Lasse Makholm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Leo Lapworth wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 5 October 2016 at 10:44, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >>> On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > > It is now much harder to advance either of these points.

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Leo Lapworth wrote: > > Hi, > > On 5 October 2016 at 10:44, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > > On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > >>> > >>> It is now much harder to advance either of these points. > >> > >> Why? > >> > > Because now that you causally dropped

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 5 October 2016 at 11:23, Leo Lapworth wrote: > Hi, > > On 5 October 2016 at 10:44, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: It is now much harder to advance either of these points. >>> >>> Why? >>> >> Because now that you causally dropped an insinuatio

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Hi, On 5 October 2016 at 10:44, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: >>> >>> It is now much harder to advance either of these points. >> >> Why? >> > Because now that you causally dropped an insinuation that a part of the work > I put into DBIC itself was perfor

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 10/05/2016 08:50 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: It is now much harder to advance either of these points. Why? Because now that you causally dropped an insinuation that a part of the work I put into DBIC itself was performed for material gain, a casual reader could interpret this entire thre

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 5 October 2016 at 09:07, David Golden wrote: > * DBIx::Class2 (DBIC2) – new feature development, with lower stability > expectations > The idea of a new project with lower stability expectations worries me. The idea of backwards compatibility and stability have been a major part of our contin

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Christian Walde wrote: > [Peter] preparing [his] feature-frozen-bugfix-only release in a different > namespace; mst's plan being used in the DBIx::Class namespace. > Speaking for myself (not for PAUSE admins), I think it's worth considering the opposite as well:

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

> It is now much harder to advance either of these points. Why? On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > This is not a response to the entirety of your email, but just one > particular bit. > > On 10/05/2016 05:24 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: > >> >> 3) Since I had contracted Pet

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

This is not a response to the entirety of your email, but just one particular bit. On 10/05/2016 05:24 AM, Karen Etheridge wrote: 3) Since I had contracted Peter (via my employer) for particular patches last year, I didn't want to say or do anything that would distract him or disrupt that work

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 4:31 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > I again must stress that there has been a huge 9+ months "discussion > period" during which nobody (besides mst) came forward expressing > concerns regarding my plans. I had a lot of things to say, but I find that others have covered most o

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 2016-10-04 6:41 PM, Matt S Trout wrote: Meanwhile: Riba presents https://web.archive.org/web/20161004214347/http://blogs.perl.org/users/peter_rabbitson/2013/07/crowdsourcing-self-confidence.html#comment-1129854 as a to-him unamnbiguous legitimisation of his first come, except that in there

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Meanwhile: Riba presents https://web.archive.org/web/20161004214347/http://blogs.perl.org/users/peter_rabbitson/2013/07/crowdsourcing-self-confidence.html#comment-1129854 as a to-him unamnbiguous legitimisation of his first come, except that in there my entire goal was to turn DBIx::Class into a

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Hello, all. I don't talk here much, because of the excellent work done by the DBIC teams over the years. I've read along and learned a lot, though, and used DBIC professionally. First, thank you to mst, Ribasushi, and all the other contributors for their hard work in stabilizing DBIC and mak

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 09:43:56PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote: > On 4 October 2016 at 21:35, Christian Walde wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:32:18 +0200, rabbit+dbic at wrote: > > > >> Nevertheless, if nobody else finds this problematic: I will step aside > >> and let an eager community, inadver

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 4 October 2016 at 21:35, Christian Walde wrote: > On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:32:18 +0200, rabbit+dbic at wrote: > >> Nevertheless, if nobody else finds this problematic: I will step aside >> and let an eager community, inadvertently suppressed all these years, >> steer this project further. > > >

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Mon, 03 Oct 2016 23:32:18 +0200, rabbit+dbic at wrote: Nevertheless, if nobody else finds this problematic: I will step aside and let an eager community, inadvertently suppressed all these years, steer this project further. Honestly, if anything i'd love to see a solution that offends ever

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Peter Mottram wrote: > DBIx::Class has gained a reputation for being a solid piece of > infrastructure which can be trusted and ribasushi has been instrumental > in getting it to that point. Care must be taken to ensure that this > expectation of reliability is not lost in favour of feature bloat

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I'm only an occasional user of DBIx::Class. I don't use it for work. I do use it in my CMS Galileo (on CPAN) so I have some small standing I think. I also am interested in the governance situation generally as some of it may directly apply to another situation I'm in (more later). First and foremo

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:20:51PM +0200, Peter Mottram wrote: > On 04/10/16 19:08, Matt S Trout wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote: > >> I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of > >> you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for t

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 04/10/16 19:08, Matt S Trout wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote: >> I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of >> you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for the fights over its >> direction and saw you as the voice of reason, pat

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 12:49:49PM -0400, Ashley Pond V wrote: > I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of > you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for the fights over its > direction and saw you as the voice of reason, patience, and vision. > Regardless of work done

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

As I mentioned, I think it would be great to understand what Peter is thinking about a "freeze" – whether that's no new releases ever, or security/critical-bug-fix releases only, general bug fixes only, or something else. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for people to say "we want stabilit

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

I did say MST RFC:MUST be respected. :P This is only here because of you. I was an early CDBI user and was there for the fights over its direction and saw you as the voice of reason, patience, and vision. Regardless of work done since, I see you as the owner. I was unaware there was as much of a sc

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 11:21:36AM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/10/16 1:15 AM, "Ashley Pond V" wrote: > >My view: MST must be respected but I personally defer to RIBASUSHI and > >his judgement. I say, what he says, goes. He has earned the benefit of > >the doubt. At least until it can

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Hi, On 4/10/16 1:15 AM, "Ashley Pond V" wrote: >RIBASUSHI has given this codebase a tremendous amount of care, >improvement, and deft effort. I am a user and evangelist of DBIC since >it was the first fork of CDBI that started to solve so many problems. >Peter has solved many problems since. > >

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

RIBASUSHI has given this codebase a tremendous amount of care, improvement, and deft effort. I am a user and evangelist of DBIC since it was the first fork of CDBI that started to solve so many problems. Peter has solved many problems since. My view: MST must be respected but I personally defer to

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Peter, Regardless of what else happens, I very much would look forward to you finishing up and shipping all the code changes you spent the last year working on. It sounds like you're almost done them, and I don't want all that effort to go to waste. I trust you that this work would provide

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Thanks for raising this David. I prefer the "Bazaar" over the "Cathedral". Cathedrals are fabulously impressive places of important historical interest, but they become cold and abandoned. If you need to do day-to-day business you go to the bazaar, where latest gadgets for every taste can be fou

Re: [Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

On 10/03/2016 10:37 PM, David Golden wrote: In the ensuing discussion, Peter disclosed additional details about his plans for the future of DBIC Given the discussion generated way more interest than I anticipated, at this point I am pausing all activity ( both code and administrative chang

[Dbix-class] IMPORTANT: A discussion of DBIC governance and future development

Hello, DBIC community. I apologize in advance for the length of this email, but I urge everyone that uses DBIC to read it fully as it relates to the future of this important module. For those who don't know me, I'm DAGOLDEN on CPAN and I've joined this list in my capacity as a PAUSE