On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:41:27 +0200, Peter Rabbitson
wrote:
( by further committing to the repository and/or shipping stuff to CPAN
under a group-controlled namespace ) would imply tacit endorsement of
the currently presented proposal for the project governance. I will not
do that.
You
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:41:27AM +0200, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> - Given the new realities of the future of this namespace (all of
> which I was not aware of until [4]), I can not proceed with my
> original plan as stated multiple times in this thread. Doing
> otherwise ( by further committing to
On 10/11/2016 08:55 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
So the only good reason I can think of to not more effectively give the
DBIC users the fruits of your labor to date, by (simply?) cutting a CPAN
release, is that you are concerned that said changes as is might break
something for users that currently
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:55:42AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Whereas, if I am wrong and the primary reason against releasing your
> existing work isn't about the risk of breaking things for users,
> then I don't understand why the future DBIC governance has any
> bearing on what you can do righ
On 2016-10-11 10:30 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote:
To make it as clear as possible, and protect what I wrote so far from
mis-interpretation:
Given the long-established goals/priorities of this namespace, and mst's
*technical* track record [1], it is my immutable opinion that DBIx::Class has no
futur
