Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 961C818A40 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 50751 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2015 21:30:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-groovy-dev-archive@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 50710 invoked by uid 500); 31 Jul 2015 21:30:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 50699 invoked by uid 99); 31 Jul 2015 21:30:47 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id A7D60D9609 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.898 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.898 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3D-5cPwbc7hd for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-f52.google.com (mail-qg0-f52.google.com [209.85.192.52]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id DE0B142E74 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qgeu79 with SMTP id u79so55095785qge.1 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=69v0bnadsfhT3t3RuYW9TGk3E6QkCrjOg9vQ+nG9t2A=; b=YJ4fTJfSF5JZt+CteMn7n2suOaQXxK/1ocJh50pejdT2mFrzraNquNdUrUM8nB2Mt0 pM7FRNx1RYJH83dKCPcAnUzp98xhaG7PxEkxzdNHL7mmQ54uBQ9w6YKnSsKI6074Z1SI AGji6nsSKCP9M+COSWfd4kkeYS7Tvpuv8OT+BOcwbrUeTlE6oXuXtt2ekHG+pTEPKcP0 NClsnTsd5Jv1FGc+cQZ89tYCtI9mYABN6xjy3opNcbfLxeQI+NCTR/WAwXakFoUG/Da+ GedEOhIkOE4k+XUac5Sbz55rCuawhnFSpO1IFgOIG9RcHYBUz0A4de4P4X21x9MhGV6I 1Pew== X-Received: by 10.140.218.6 with SMTP id o6mr8703490qhb.26.1438378245388; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.19.243 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 14:30:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Keegan Witt Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:30:25 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: moving from 1.7.4 to 2.4.4 To: dev@groovy.incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1139d7185e7f97051c328860 --001a1139d7185e7f97051c328860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It might be better to ask this question on the user list rather than the dev list, to get a bigger audience for finding out what other folks have encountered. -Keegan On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Rob Lintern wrote: > Hi, > > Can anybody think of any red flags in moving from Groovy 1.7.4 to the > latest (2.4.4)? > There is a patch in 2.4.4 that we would like to have which is not > back-ported to 1.7.x.. Otherwise we have no real reason to upgrade, > besides the vague notion of keeping up with the times, but this doesn't > outweigh any backwards-compatibility issues that we may encounter. > > Cheers, > Rob > > > > > --001a1139d7185e7f97051c328860 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It might be better to ask this question on the user l= ist rather than the dev list, to get a bigger audience for finding out what= other folks have encountered.

-Keegan

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 5:19 PM= , Rob Lintern <rlintern@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Hi,

Can anybody think of any red flags= in moving from Groovy 1.7.4 to the latest (2.4.4)?
There is a patch in 2.4.4 that we = would like to have which is not back-ported to 1.7.x.. =C2=A0 Otherwise we have no real reason to upgrade, besides the vague notion of keeping up with the times, but this doesn't outweigh any backwards-compatibility issues that we may encounter.

Cheers,
Rob





--001a1139d7185e7f97051c328860--