groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <>
Subject Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Apache Groovy Roadmap - take 2
Date Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:29:23 GMT

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King <> wrote:

> Hi folks,
> Earlier in the year, C├ędric did a great job of outlining a possible
> roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it
> but we never quite managed complete consensus.
> We had a fairly clear consensus on getting out 2.5 with macro support
> - that is underway now.
> There was also consensus around a version of Groovy containing the new
> parrot parser and based around a minimum JDK runtime requirement of
> 1.8 (possibly numbered Groovy 3.0 or 4.0). This is what we'll start
> fleshing out on the master branch.
> I believe there was also general consensus around a version of Groovy
> containing a back-ported version of the parrot parser for jdk 1.7
> (possibly numbered Groovy 2.6 or 3.0).
> The main contention seemed to be what level of breaking changes (if
> any) should be allowed in a 2.6 release (vs 3.0 release) etc. I don't
> believe there was a serious divide in opinions, just that without some
> more concrete details about what would actually be in any of the
> various proposed releases, it was difficult to zero in on a final
> roadmap.
> Rather than continue debate at a theoretical level about the roadmap,
> I plan to just start fleshing out some more details of the potential
> releases and we can decide when to release and what to call them once
> they are fleshed out further.
> With this in mind, I plan to create a 2_6_X branch. The intention will
> be to try out the back-ported parrot to convince ourselves if any
> (significant) breaking changes have been introduced - and
> (potentially) exclude some of Parrot's changes. This branch can be
> considered a bridging version of Groovy for JDK 1.7 users who can't go
> straight to the full 1.8 based version. We can decide later whether
> this branch forms the basis of a 2.6, 3.0 or no release.
> This is a lazy consensus vote, so I'll go ahead and create the branch
> in 72 hrs for the purposes described above unless I hear serious
> objections.
> Cheers, Paul.

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

Social: @glaforge <> / Google+

View raw message