Sorry, realized that I wasn't on the plain ol' DBIC ML, so I didn't get
this initially.  Message threading might be odd here...

On Thu Apr 4 10:04:06 GMT 2013, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 08:36:53AM +0200, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ 迪拉斯 wrote:
> > New patches on top of
> > <>.

Comments from me in the commits.

> > > Not merged. While I like the idea, I am not sure if mentioning
> > > DBIC::Row DBIC::Rel::Base (which is about to go away soon... I
> > > hope... I really do) is a good idea. Especially given that we have
> > >
> > It's not the problem you think it is. The docs patch does and must
> > reflect current reality.
> Right... and current reality is that folks look at ::Row, and decide it
> is the base class and never look further on. This was the whole reason
> behind constructing ::Manual::ResultClass - to highlight ::Row is just a
> small part of the entire set. This is something SineSwiper should wheigh
> in on.

My work on :M:RC was directly based on this confusion.  As far as the
original commit (cc3ad59), I detailed my comments on that here:

> > > Perhaps we should have a separate test-less
> > > DBIx::Class::ExtendedManual dist which is a direct dependency of
> > > DBIx::Class?
> > ++ to that
> Well... Daxim, Abraxxa, Castaway, SineSwiper - who wants to tackle that?
> This way we get the reference manual remain in core (and get updated
> with code) and the tutorials etc being maintained separately (which is
> safe given our commitment to backwards comp).

I like that, though links to it should be everywhere throughout DBIC.
 Castaway, don't you already have a separate distro for DBIC docs

DocMap might still want to have links to them, too.

Brendan Byrd <>
Brendan Byrd <>
Searchable Archive:

Reply via email to