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 all the existing DBIx::Class users to ensure >> that they >> understand they are getting bleeding-edge code. Moving to a more risky >> configuration must always be done intentionally. > > Those are my thoughts exactly. If DBIC ever started using multiple > namespaces to distinguish LTS from bigger changes, the LTS should > always have the existing name. Users should always get the "safe" > option by default and explicitly opt-in to risk, rather than the > opposite. This assumes the use of multiple namespaces, and is > inapplicable if only one name is used. -- Darren Duncan > If having two name spaces makes everyone happy and there are people available to work on both then +1 from me as long as the existing namespace is the more conservative one.
_______________________________________________ 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
