groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cédric Champeau <cchamp...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Groovy Roadmap
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:45:36 GMT
YES for me too (forgot to answer :D). And yes, we should review (and merge)
your PR before beta-1.

2017-01-31 9:44 GMT+01:00 Sergei Egorov <bsideup@gmail.com>:

> YES from me.
>
> Would be great if we can deliver #1 as a macro method, not it form of
> "MacroGroovy" (and hopefully forget this awkward name collision :D )
>
> Just want to remind that there is a PR waiting for a review where I
> rewrote it and implemented basic macro methods support:
> https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/472/files
>
>
> BR,
> Sergei
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:37 AM Cédric Champeau <cchampeau@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> There are multiple conversations going on for weeks, and I think they are
>> going nowhere. We could discuss for months what's the best plan for Groovy,
>> without releasing anything. Here are the challenges that are waiting for us:
>>
>> 1. release a version of Groovy that integrates Groovy macros
>> 2. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.7, which is
>> required to smoothly transition to higher requirements (and also, make our
>> devs lives easier)
>> 3. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.8, allowing us to
>> drop the old call site caching and use indy Groovy everywhere
>> 4. integrate Parrot, which replaces the use of Antlr2 with Antlr4
>> 5. compatibility with Jigsaw, aka "Groovy as a module"
>>
>> I would like to propose the following plan:
>>
>> - Groovy 2.5: integrates 1 and 2, to be released ASAP, we've been waiting
>> for this for too long
>> - Groovy 2.6: integrate 4, implying backporting Parrot to Java 7
>> - Groovy 3.0: integrate 3 and 5. The only version with necessary breaking
>> changes (we have no choice here)
>>
>> This plan is, I think, a good compromise for all the requirements we
>> have: backwards compatibility, and making progress and not having too many
>> branches. An alternative would be to keep Parrot on Java 8, but as some of
>> us have said, this is incompatible with a soonish release. The drawback is
>> that Parrot has the risk of being a breaking change (it is, typically if
>> people implicitly depend on the old parser, which would be bad), so there's
>> a risk of not following semantic versioning.
>>
>> - [ ] YES, I approve the roadmap above
>> - [ ] NO, I do not approve the roadmap abobe beause...
>> - [ ] I don't mind, or this goes beyond what I can think of
>>
>> This vote is open for 72h, ending 9:30am CET, on Feb 3rd, 2017.
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message