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.

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 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 emailed you 2 weeks ago ... 48 hours ago, I emailed you ...

Looking at Juerd's homenode I notice he hasn't been around here for over 3 weeks.

Hm. A man who lives in Northern Europe, MIA for a few weeks in the height of the Northern hemispheres summer months. I wonder where he might be...

The expression Fork you! (or possible You fork!) comes to mind.

The expression Fork you! (or possible You fork!) comes to mind.

I'm trying to avoid that.




The mantra of every experienced web application developer is the same: thou shalt separate business logic from display. Ironically, almost all template engines allow violation of this separation principle, which is the very impetus for HTML template engine development.

-- Terence Parr, "Enforcing Strict Model View Separation in Template Engines"

My point was that as your need seems to be quite urgent, and you know what changes you want made, you could make a local fork to satisfy your own immediate needs.

It would also serve to allow you to demonstrate the efficacy of your changes and as the basis of a patch which might sway the outcome of your request.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

• Re^4: DBIx::Simple - Your opinions/review please (Summary: those two ignored tickets aren't actual bugs)
• method chaining fails where separate method calls succeed in DBIx::Simple
• I should have been more Handy::Dandy in dealing with DBIx::Simple and Juerd

There was a complete misunderstanding of one point of my post. In no way, was I asking Juerd to implement something. I was asking him to add something. If you had read the linked thread, you would see 2 implementations there, one by me and one by Juerd. The issue was adding it.