Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2HCd-NTixMRDhsBiLqQwGtrSag6C3qLEdvU-4=+=s64Yj_=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMbkE7QjM2BeebJwquLSkm_dUiUbf6XtJ3QE-OiK2ubVNBdUEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ2HCd-NTixMRDhsBiLqQwGtrSag6C3qLEdvU-4=+=s64Yj_=A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mario Garcia <mario.ggar@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:23:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJp1MBOti8jBYOZFqJO4Ja6BSwZiYenF8+cwMOduCkpZEutfRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Apache Groovy Roadmap - take 2
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Cc: Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ea694aeb28a054adb7ce9
archived-at: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:24:10 -0000

--001a113ea694aeb28a054adb7ce9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1

On 16 Mar 2017 15:29, "Guillaume Laforge" <glaforge@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Earlier in the year, C=C3=A9dric 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
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>

--001a113ea694aeb28a054adb7ce9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">+1</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On 16 Mar 2017 15:29, &quot;Guillaume Laforge&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:glaforge@gmail.com">glaforge@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"at=
tribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">+1</div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4=
:15 AM, Paul King <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:paulk@asert.com.a=
u" target=3D"_blank">paulk@asert.com.au</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">Hi folks,<br>
<br>
Earlier in the year, C=C3=A9dric did a great job of outlining a possible<br=
>
roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it<br>
but we never quite managed complete consensus.<br>
<br>
We had a fairly clear consensus on getting out 2.5 with macro support<br>
- that is underway now.<br>
<br>
There was also consensus around a version of Groovy containing the new<br>
parrot parser and based around a minimum JDK runtime requirement of<br>
1.8 (possibly numbered Groovy 3.0 or 4.0). This is what we&#39;ll start<br>
fleshing out on the master branch.<br>
<br>
I believe there was also general consensus around a version of Groovy<br>
containing a back-ported version of the parrot parser for jdk 1.7<br>
(possibly numbered Groovy 2.6 or 3.0).<br>
<br>
The main contention seemed to be what level of breaking changes (if<br>
any) should be allowed in a 2.6 release (vs 3.0 release) etc. I don&#39;t<b=
r>
believe there was a serious divide in opinions, just that without some<br>
more concrete details about what would actually be in any of the<br>
various proposed releases, it was difficult to zero in on a final<br>
roadmap.<br>
<br>
Rather than continue debate at a theoretical level about the roadmap,<br>
I plan to just start fleshing out some more details of the potential<br>
releases and we can decide when to release and what to call them once<br>
they are fleshed out further.<br>
<br>
With this in mind, I plan to create a 2_6_X branch. The intention will<br>
be to try out the back-ported parrot to convince ourselves if any<br>
(significant) breaking changes have been introduced - and<br>
(potentially) exclude some of Parrot&#39;s changes. This branch can be<br>
considered a bridging version of Groovy for JDK 1.7 users who can&#39;t go<=
br>
straight to the full 1.8 based version. We can decide later whether<br>
this branch forms the basis of a 2.6, 3.0 or no release.<br>
<br>
This is a lazy consensus vote, so I&#39;ll go ahead and create the branch<b=
r>
in 72 hrs for the purposes described above unless I hear serious<br>
objections.<br>
<br>
Cheers, Paul.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class=
=3D"m_-6735249245656757347gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signatur=
e"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Guillaume Laforge<br>Apache Gr=
oovy committer &amp; PMC Vice-President</div><div dir=3D"ltr">Developer Adv=
ocate @ Google Cloud Platform<br><div><br></div><div>Blog:=C2=A0<a href=3D"=
http://glaforge.appspot.com/" target=3D"_blank">http://glaforge.appspot.<wb=
r>com/</a><div><div>Social: <a href=3D"http://twitter.com/glaforge" target=
=3D"_blank">@glaforge</a>=C2=A0/ <a href=3D"https://plus.google.com/u/0/114=
130972232398734985/posts" target=3D"_blank">Google+</a></div></div></div></=
div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>

--001a113ea694aeb28a054adb7ce9--