groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: release process
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:32:22 GMT
That's indeed another approach.
But that would mean two close major releases with breaking changes. Do you
think it'd be acceptable?


On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Suderman Keith <suderman@anc.org> wrote:

>
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 9:51 AM, C├ędric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The main problem is parrot is that it requires Java 8, and 2.5 is planned
> to support 1.7. And bundling such a core thing as an experimental, optional
> module is a no-go for me (imagine the bug reports...). We could have a 2.9
> release (or something similar) with Parrot sooner, though.
>
>
> Maybe it is time to rethink the Groovy roadmap with respect to version
> numbers?  For example, something like
>
> 2.x Continue as is
> 3.x Java 1.7 + Parrot.  Maintain binary compatibility as much as possible.
> (was 2.9)
> 4.x Java 1.8 + Parrot + Jigsaw (was 3.0)
>
> This would make 4.x the new "blow up everything" release.  Personally I
> consider a move from Java 1.7 -> Java 1.8 a breaking change and should not
> be done in a 2.x release.  This roadmap would clearly separate upgrades and
> breaking changes while still allowing people to start using Parrot in what
> is essentially 2.x as soon as possible.
>
> Cheers,
> Keith
>
>
> (as a side note, any release of Groovy that would require Java 8 would be
> a no-go for Gradle in short term, be it 2.x or 3.x)
>
> 2017-01-24 15:45 GMT+01:00 Graeme Rocher <graeme.rocher@gmail.com>:
>
>> Understood.
>>
>> I still think it would be valuable to have a Parrot + Java 8 + Groovy
>> 2.x release before Groovy 3.x
>>
>> Maybe I am alone here, but it seems a shame that actual users won't
>> get to benefit from Parrot for quite a few years.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 24.01.2017 14:50, Graeme Rocher wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Is the plan for 3.0 to break binary compatibility for existing
>> libraries?
>> >>
>> >> Personally I don't think we should ever have a version that we call
>> >> "blow everything up version" that would be a big red flag for me.
>> >> Imagine Oracle announcing the Java JDK "blow everything up" edition.
>> >
>> >
>> > you mean like Java9 with jigsaw?
>> >
>> >> Is there a way to retain some form of binary compatibility maybe
>> >> through `groovy-compat` that contains the old call site caching?
>> >
>> >
>> > That depends. If we want to change Closure to be a functional interface
>> for
>> > example, then not really. groovy-compat would have to transform the code
>> > using Groovy. Or we have a transform that will force the program to use
>> the
>> > old closures, then we can still solve the issue.
>> >
>> > In other words, I think we should develop freely till we have what we
>> want
>> > and then think about how to make things compatible again.
>> >
>> > bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Graeme Rocher
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>

Mime
View raw message