* improve NEXT warnings. related irc conversation from 09/01/21:

04:34:45  * mst wonders if that reports via caller or ref($self)
04:35:29 < dhoss-laptop> jshirley: but but but i'm not
04:36:01 <@jshirley> Oh, latest Catalyst::View::TT does
04:36:11 <@jshirley> I thought that was well tested on 5.8
04:36:18  * dhoss-laptop thought so too
04:36:25 < dhoss-laptop> *and* config loader
04:36:52 < dhoss-laptop> would that be any reason for my templates not being found? or would that be a whole different case? my code looks fine
                         in my view
04:37:15 <@rafl> mst: ref $self, currently
04:37:24 < shadowpaste> "dhoss-laptop" at 76.10.60.8 pasted "pasting anyway" (15 lines) at http://scsys.co.uk:8001/22854
04:37:48 <@rafl> which admittedly sucks a little
04:37:50 <@mst> rafl: mm. caller would be better in terms of reporting the error against the package it's meant to be reported against
04:37:55 <@rafl> right
04:38:14 <@mst> I also wonder if we should exclude /^Catalyst::/ stuff and then do a pass across CPAN reporting bugs against people
04:38:47 <@mst> rather than having people's apps scream at them just because an author is being a prat
04:39:02 <@rafl> patch, anyone? git://github.com/rafl/class-c3-adopt-next.git
04:39:16 <@rafl> i'd prefer not to exclude ^Catalyst
04:39:55 <@mst> well, I was thinking an import argument
04:40:02 <@rafl> the more annoying it is, the more likely it is to be fixed by authors is what i was thinking
04:40:08 <@mst> so Catalyst can ask you to exclude ^Catalyst
04:40:30 <@rafl> figured that
04:41:04 <@mst> hrm
04:41:15 <@mst> actually, even better, it can pass an exclude list
04:41:22 <@mst> and an include list with versions that contain fixage
04:41:39 <@mst> then as shit on CPAN gets fixed it can start warning that you should upgrade
04:41:46 <@rafl> that's already implemented. someone would need to maintain that list though
04:42:28 <@rafl> i still think that silencing the warnings will delay fixes
04:42:33 <@mst> if one person files all the rt tickets
04:42:45 <@mst> it's just a question of watching email
04:44:04 <@mst> and it doesn't seem fair for a user's code to warn all over the fucking place
04:44:10 <@mst> just because some cpan author hasn't got their ass in gear
04:44:52 <@rafl> the user already can disable the warnings for certain classes
04:45:44 <@mst> I think we should leave 'em on for the RCs
04:45:57  * dhoss-laptop phrews
04:46:02 <@mst> but I don't think 5.80 final should be that sqeually
04:46:06 <@rafl> what we have now is basically what i thought was good enough. it can certainly be better.
04:46:17 <@rafl> i won't work on that anytime soon though
04:46:20 <@mst> sure
04:46:34 <@mst> could you throw this conversation into an IDEAS file or something?