On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Wendy G.A. van Dijk nl...@wendy.org wrote:
Hi Jens,
You interrupted me at every 5 words I tried to explain about what was
discussed at the consensus meetings at the QA Hackathon in Berlin. We had a
big argument, and you never ever did let me finish the
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:19:03 -0500, David Nicol davidn...@cpan.org
wrote:
I look forward to being able to brag that DBIx::bind_param_inline is
Approved by the Berlin DBI Committee or equivalent.
As there is no, never was, nor will there be a Berlin DBI Committee
feel free to brag as you wish
At 04:19 PM 4/24/2015, David Nicol wrote:
This is a relief. I was surprised to see implied that the DBI power
mist has the power to change CPAN policy in the described way.
Hopefully this upcoming sensible and balanced statement will include a
facility for helping identify and designate
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:49:15PM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:19:03 -0500, David Nicol davidn...@cpan.org
wrote:
I look forward to being able to brag that DBIx::bind_param_inline is
Approved by the Berlin DBI Committee or equivalent.
As there is no, never was,
Hi Jens,
You interrupted me at every 5 words I tried to explain about what was
discussed at the consensus meetings at the QA Hackathon in
Berlin. We had a big argument, and you never ever did let me finish
the explanation. You told me how bad the decision was, but you never
let me explain
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:01:46 +0200, Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Merijn,
since Wendy told me yesterday that every new module must (should)
have a co-maint,
It was decided upon to be *advisory* for upstream modules: those that
have modules on CPAN that depend on it or where is
Am 22.04.2015 um 12:21 schrieb H.Merijn Brand h.m.br...@xs4all.nl:
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:01:46 +0200, Jens Rehsack rehs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Merijn,
since Wendy told me yesterday that every new module must (should)
have a co-maint,
It was decided upon to be *advisory* for
