Woops, didn't mean to refer to the old version of C4. I don't know the differences between C4.1 and C4.2 are, but I suspect the newer one is probably better. Corrected link is https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:42/C4/.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:57:38AM -0700, fREW Schmidt wrote: > Hello friends, > > TL;DR: > > * Given that we want stability and community involvment, maybe we > should try C4.1 which optimizes for these. > * I really strongly think that all members of (AT LEAST) the core > group need to act like adults when conversing with other people, > especially realizing that things that may not be personal attacks > often seem that way when plain text is the mode of discussion. > > Exposition below, feel free to skip if you are busy or don't care. > > I haven't kept super up to date with these threads, especially since a > lot of it has devolved into email, irc, and blog comment exegesis, > which I don't see as being particularly helpful or valuable. > > I wouldn't respond to this again but I am specifically named in > Matt's proposed core team so I felt like it would be warranted. I > agree that the stability of DBIC is a huge asset. > > There are at least two stabilities here: The first is not losing data. > While DBIC has a good track record of this, I personally have > experienced a bug (fixed by ribasushi of course) where the WHERE > clause of a complex delete was lost. (Yes, the whole table was > deleted.) This is critical to maintain, and hard. > > The more subtle stability, the kind that doesn't get people fired but > instead leaches the time out of our brief lives, is pointless > breakages in backcompat, silly little bugs that have to be worked > around, etc. This is also hard, and people are less willing to do it, > but if we care about our users (and I do!) we must continue to > maintain it. > > There is the hope that DBIC can be maintained by a disparate group. I > have hope, especially having seen at my current place of employment > that sometimes, throwing conventional wisdom out the window and > deciding to do things a new and better way is a good option. > > I am sorta attracted to the model the late Pieter Hintjens came up > with for ∅MQ (C4.1, https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec:22/C4/, except the > specification of [LA]GPL) but am not going to push it hard. I just > think a model for similarly trusted software might be worth > considering. > > I am ok with being part of a core group, although I must caution > everyone: I personally don't have the time nor desires I used to have. > DBIC and it's community have treated me well, and I respect that, but I > can only spill so much blood for Open Source software. > > What I am *not* interested in is being a member of a core group where > I have to be the adult in interpersonal conflicts. Matt, if an idea > is stupid, you can express it constructively. If it's wrong, say how. > You *must* stop assuming people can or will read your mind or treat > your words as sacred texts to be analyzed character by character. I > don't expect anyone to be perfect, core group or external, and expect > everyone to make mistakes, but we should at least decide to set a tone > of professionalism, charity, cordiality, or whatever you want to call > it so that we don't end up pointlessly making our small part of the > Perl community more harmful than it needs to be. > > -- > Station, > Arthur Axel fREW Schmidt > https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com -- fREW Schmidt https://blog.afoolishmanifesto.com _______________________________________________ List: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbix-class IRC: irc.perl.org#dbix-class SVN: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/repos/bast/DBIx-Class/ Searchable Archive: http://www.grokbase.com/group/dbix-class@lists.scsys.co.uk
