I followed the discussion silently so far as I‘m not a user of DBD:mysql. If the changes are breaking I‘d also think a new distribution is the way to go. What about DBD::MariaDB as that‘s the name of the OpenSource version these days?
Best regards, Alex > Am 10.11.2017 um 07:16 schrieb Darren Duncan <dar...@darrenduncan.net>: > >> 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::mysql2, by the same maintainers. (I would not >> favor >> DBD::MariaDB as a name, since this new distribution would also be the favored >> way to connect to MySQL.) After doing so DBD::mysql can be deprecated, with >> migration instructions added to the docs, and only receive critical security >> fixes if anything. If done this way the community should not be fractured; >> the >> current module will simply be abandoned for future development, all support >> and >> maintenance will move to the new one. Patrick and Michiel, what do you think? > > I agree with everything Dan said here. Its what I proposed, in fewer words. > Do all new development under a new name, including all of Pali's work, and > leave the current name for a product with no further effort applied to > develop it. -- Darren Duncan
