+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
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
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
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"
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
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)