Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-27 Thread Renvoize, Martin
+1 from me too, well expressed Matt. I also wanted to add that it really feels to me like people are only focused on the negatives of a split. Reduced resources. That simply isn't the case here, we're left with a solid dbic with a commitment from riba to continue supporting it, all be with a

Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-26 Thread Charlie Garrison
Good morning, On 27 Oct 2016, at 0:50, Matthew Phillips wrote: So, given a choice between a proven quantity, and an unproven (and in Frew and I's opinion almost  non-existent) quantity, it seems like the obvious choice for Peter to continue. The gratitude expressed for Peter's immense amount

Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-26 Thread Matthew Phillips
Christian, I don't believe it is fair at all to attribute malice to Peter in this situation. He's mentioned multiple times throughout this process that although he wants what he thinks is best, that the reason he's reached out is to let the user base decide. Regarding your desire for active

Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-25 Thread Christian Walde
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:20:27 +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote: On 10/23/2016 10:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote: On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley wrote: - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower time) "DBIC"

Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-24 Thread Andrew Beverley
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:40:15 +0100 Leo Lapworth wrote: > This sounds like the worst of all options. I disagree. Given the last 3 weeks of discussions, it sounds like the only option, and the one that offers a solution for everyone. > I'd rather such a key project as DBIx::Class

Re: [Dbix-class] Clarification on the split-namespace proposal

2016-10-24 Thread Leo Lapworth
On 24 October 2016 at 12:20, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > On 10/23/2016 10:55 PM, Christian Walde wrote: >> >> On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 22:19:42 +0200, Andrew Beverley >> wrote: >> >>> - Riba was prepared to keep maintaining (and "tightening" in slower >>> time)