Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please

by Corion (Pope)
on Aug 01, 2011 at 16:21 UTC ( #917879=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
in thread DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please

Are you sure that this should have been posted instead of emailed?

To me, you sound an awful lot like throwing a tantrum just because the author does not respond favourably and promptly to your suggestions.

If you feel that you need a response time of below 48 hours, maybe you could consider a support contract with Juerd? I'm not sure of your licensing agreement, but I'm sure that if it is backed with the appropriately generous financial circumstances, it will be looked on favourably.


Comment on Re^2: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
Re^3: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please
by mithaldu (Monk) on Aug 01, 2011 at 17:16 UTC

    I think it's important to note here that this is not merely a case of a 48 hour silence, but one of at least one legit bug being ignored for 7 months, and another email being ignored for two weeks; coupled with no clear path of providing patches or documented author's intent. (Did he abandon it, did he start rewriting it from scratch? Who knows!)

    His frustration is certainly understandable to me, especially as i've been in similar situations.

    How about, instead of mocking and lambasting him, we try to help him channel his passion into a positive direction? DBIx::Simple can really need some love, which its father does not seem willing to provide anymore.

      I'm not sure that reviving some six year old thread is the best apporoach to get an answer from Juerd about the module. I'm not privy to metaperls intentions, but if they are to get bugs fixed, the approach taken strikes me as somewhat odd. The bugs are not reported via the traditional bug reporting venue, rt.cpan.org, but hidden in the last point of the post, seemingly copied from some other email without showing care about the formulation. Metaperl is aware of the traditional venue for reporting bugs. If there is doubt in whether RT is used by Juerd, maybe that question could have been cleared by email.

      If the intent is to antagonize Juerd or to vent the metaperls disappointment, I understand the cathartical effect, but I disagree with the idea of doing so here.

      If the intent is to take over maintenance of the module, metaperl should maybe have mentioned that as a constructive way of resolving the issue.

      I get the impression of an air of entitlement of metaperl to a speedy response, as metaperl mentions lack of reaction within 48 hours multiple times. I'm not sure this sense of entitlement or disregard for the personal situation of Juerd (whatever it might be) warrants anything else than mocking. And, on a more serious side, if you really need an SLA with a reaction time below 48 hours after reporting an error, I think you will need to talk to the author about arranging such an agreement with compensate remuneration.

        I was hoping to see a post like this and you actually did it. Thank you. :)

        Even when being reproachful it is advisable to take a stance that informs the adversary.

      I think it's important to note here that this is not merely a case of a 48 hour silence, but one of at least one legit bug being ignored for 7 months

      One of the two open "bugs" was a licensing issue, the other was a non-issue because that one had already been addressed in a previous release.

      In any case, all bugs in the RT queue have now been addressed; the licensing "bug" is still open, metaperl's ticket and the duplicate report were rejected, as was an open feature request.

      RT is there, but I prefer bug reports by e-mail. My CPAN mail address redirects to /dev/null because it accumulated an enormous amount of spam that after forwarding is pretty hard to filter accurately. As a result, I don't get e-mail notifications from new RT tickets. I never asked for an RT queue; it is created automatically and there is nothing CPAN authors can do about it.

        I never asked for an RT queue; it is created automatically and there is nothing CPAN authors can do about it.

        The META-spec 1.4 version includes resources by which you can indicate a different bugtracker. Would that help?

        Well, that explains a bunch. Thanks for writing it out. :)

        Some comments: I agree that the bugs were not that important, my point was more about them being ignored in the first place, i.e. no reply. I understand now why that happened and it is a legit reason, but i still think that the impression it gave is what it is.

        As for RT, I'd suggest using a google email account for that. Their spam filtering is excellent and i cannot remember the last time i received a spam email that way.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://917879]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others contemplating the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-07-22 21:13 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (128 votes), past polls