Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >> Given that Peter abdicated the right to choose first-come himself > > This is not the case. The right was taken away from me, in an unprecedented > overreach by the PAUSE admins, as summarized by Graham Knop in >

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On 2016-10-08 2:33 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: I have been battling a severe cold, and can't manage to write sufficiently clear prose. I hope to have David's questions addressed by Monday However I need to unambiguously address the following right now: On 10/08/2016 09:33 PM, Darren Duncan

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

I have been battling a severe cold, and can't manage to write sufficiently clear prose. I hope to have David's questions addressed by Monday However I need to unambiguously address the following right now: On 10/08/2016 09:33 PM, Darren Duncan wrote: Given that Peter abdicated the right to

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On 2016-10-08 7:07 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: I stand by the statement that if whoever riba picked comes forward themselves, I'll happily add their name to my proposal, but if not, I think you lot are going to have to figure out a way to pick one yourselves, since the whole point of this slot is to

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Matt S Trout wrote: > (3) [snip] Please > please everybody remember this is a vague draft, you're allowed to propose > adjustments yourselves, oh and if somebody has a plan they think is better > then write it up and propose it - if nothing

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 08:17:08PM +, Matt S Trout wrote: > Since people seem to be unsure as to what the alternative to riba's project > freeze would actually be, let me provide something a little more concrete. Minor adjustments. (1) castaway currently holds the SQLT first-come bits and

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

Having just read the C4 spec, I generally find its proposals reasonable. However, section 2.5 "Branches and Releases" seems too simplistic and I would recommend against adopting that part as is. In particular, its third point: "To make a stable release a Maintainer shall tag the repository.

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On 2016-10-06 2:18 AM, Aaron Trevena wrote: One quick thing to mention, is that SQL and Relational Databases have moved forward considerably since we were using Class::DBI. I'm now working on a project using latest Postgres features, and I've been literally astonished at some of the new stuff

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

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, > >

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

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

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

This pretty much matches my situation and opinion. Thanks Riba for the great work so far. +1 for Matt's plan. Cheers, -- Wallace Reis Em 5 de out de 2016 08:55, "Nigel Metheringham" escreveu: Background: I have been a happy DBIx::Class user from the early days. I have some

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On 4 October 2016 at 21:45, Aaron Crane wrote: > Matt S Trout wrote: >> Since people seem to be unsure as to what the alternative to riba's project >> freeze would actually be, let me provide something a little more concrete. >> >> This is intended as a basis

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

Background: I have been a happy DBIx::Class user from the early days. I have some code contributions within DBIC and SQLA, although relatively small ones, but have not had a need to make changes in recent years, so have recently been a silent DBIC mailing list member. Riba has put in a lot of

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

I haven't waded in on this so far, as I consider others with direct involvement with the project to have far more weight in their opinions on that matter, but just for the record: On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 20:17:08 + Matt S Trout wrote: > 1) I think at this point we should

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

On 10/04/2016 04:17 PM, Matt S Trout wrote: Since people seem to be unsure as to what the alternative to riba's project freeze would actually be, let me provide something a little more concrete. This is intended as a basis for discussion rather than a complete plan, but I thought it was worth

Re: [Dbix-class] A slightly more concrete proposal

I agree with this proposal that Matt stated, it seems solid to me. I will also say that I intend to be a significant DBIC contributor personally starting in the near future, estimated about 1 month from now. Initially that will take the form of significant new core features developed in an