groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paolo Di Tommaso <paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Date Tue, 22 May 2018 07:51:16 GMT
> But seriously, a project release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is
extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)

I definitely agree, what's the rationale of supporting Java 7? The new Java
release train is putting a lot of pressure on the fast adoption of latest
Java versions. IMO it would be much better to focus on Java 9
compatibility.


p

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 2.99 or alike doesn't make sense. What if you have to release a bug fix
> release. 2.99.1? That's nasty :)
>
> I'm very much in favor of dropping 2.6 altogether because it's confusing
> as possible. We don't have 2.5 yet, and we already have alphas for 3.0.
> This mean we would live with 3 "live" branches for a while (2.5.x, 2.6.x
> and 3.x), which is too much overhead for my brain, and probably too much
> hassle for the maintainers of Groovy. I reckon that people wanted to have
> the ability to try the new parser on JDK 7. But seriously, a project
> release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK
> 11, not 7 :)
>
> Le mar. 22 mai 2018 à 09:33, mg <mgbiz@arscreat.com> a écrit :
>
>> Good point.
>>
>> This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x or
>> my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x
>> (once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
>>
>> Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch
>> was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e.
>> without breaking changes).
>> Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which would
>> be much more confusing...
>>
>> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect,
>> clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Thibault Kruse <tibokruse@googlemail.com>
>> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, paulk@asert.com.au
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
>>
>> If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
>> continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
>> 2.9.
>> What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
>> Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
>>
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> > 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
>> > missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
>> > We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With
>> semantic
>> > versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
>> > So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
>> > support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
>> > of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
>> > number.
>> >
>> > Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
>> > non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
>> > most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work,
>> I
>> > say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
>> > contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Paul.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
>> > <john.wagenleitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> >> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> >> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or
>> 2.8
>> >> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> >> versions.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to
>> 2.9.
>> >>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't
a
>> >>> small step up
>> >>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers, Paul.
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message