From users-return-3632-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@groovy.apache.org Wed Jun 13 23:39:43 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5E11E180609 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:39:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 61402 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2018 21:39:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@groovy.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@groovy.apache.org Received: (qmail 61392 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2018 21:39:41 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:39:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id DEDD11A2572 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:39:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.47 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.47 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=2, KAM_NUMSUBJECT=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=asert-com-au.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TEL-trnYE8mC for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:39:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id BBE1B5F33D for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id r125-v6so8103026wmg.2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:39:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=asert-com-au.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=yxRxboH/FNgaqWuxxb1lly0mzMNToBRUdeI7XHUuY1Y=; b=kTv1xeGVZ3OTBmvkLwKPhAN3sHW1BS6LqULfrisbeyzKkyLU/5TI/ELDKeWHhof+aV YBqegdYlFbbBLxmVPKNHupzHSx4YUQ0/Q7OwopeHJ0B+VnyPZ7PNgeDJfJBErwRYoQKj Z3J1sc0CYCW5k/+ndrAyXtZN9WWRLvtV58DWo//XdgQtINkXfypkQ9VEEnSjuUwSBxYw +CRI9cRcMc4A2Q/4LEYVDCF23ltLlnlL1JxxBt2KpvB4yeim6dO36jFCLdWtLbzaq7yx aCyqK7aABVeJgLIdcNmD3aMecD8tV9omfruRX9JLS9YZpDGL0up/DDx8jz0NMKQ7H2ll P3cg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:reply-to :from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=yxRxboH/FNgaqWuxxb1lly0mzMNToBRUdeI7XHUuY1Y=; b=PwGo6g1ZCSgXCgIlGDbcF88s2jbtPpZa4WicOwz6xtT93s6YArK8FAzKUsBKPezAoc eGGovaqyz4kM4FWxsodw4uVZBF0mpRiziUyYVZz/tht0CnMd03HdrIyzsUsPymMUe5Fn ywvHLopgdcpx5zmTpeFJuTbdIlvPYk1EjS2cGvNj1s/Z/QFZjeyKxkrpwEaQn/bT+sMd WJZs4xsNPeobITLysrFp5TIth+E9UiLIN58Q9qPlD6DyicZnmNY4BTKpYzNFSdi02J/X iGdUnsRu0ntf1DP5PC5H8mr8UTWqdJcmVzwjw3lgoyG1LeyfNQVDv+Dqky8hKy6LqXsB ubgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3unbSz4CnKIcGepnw2xyrBjnmsTRS2WDG7C2aLeA3b0i5MgHXz 4p/Nz2g1YpEWMZsw1UzECNhJhRCa4was/tF518DNThiN X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKBXfXkrIDnwYRnXQQbTVtRTutm32V3/vIN+TNBLX8vhggesi3EEuRFiNlb7RhOUX9XI7dCsRNV9BoaY6Cdfy8= X-Received: by 2002:a50:c90b:: with SMTP id o11-v6mr5804852edh.193.1528925975392; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:39:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <103o4pv6oga6tmt47uej1nl1.1528873899190@simplicityitself.com> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: paulk@asert.com.au From: Paul King Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:39:24 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 To: users@groovy.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a6c396056e8cd12e" --000000000000a6c396056e8cd12e Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" A non-alpha 2.6.0 is a possibility but not my favored approach. On our roadmap for 3.0 we are still fleshing out numerous things: * we have a version of native lambdas but perhaps not how our final design might look * we have to decide whether default methods in interfaces should be implemented using traits (current implementation) or some more native approach * ditto for method references (current implementation uses method closures) * we haven't finished static methods in interfaces * potential indy vs non-indy changes * potential breaking package name changes * potential compiler assistance to minimise breaking changes With so many things not quite finalised, alpha seems appropriate to me. Also, we want a very clear story around what restrictions/compatibility exists for libraries compiled under say 2.5 and used with Groovy 3.0 and vice versa. I am not sure we can do that to the same degree for 2.6 in its current state. Alpha sets a better expectation that there might be restrictions. As an interim version to assist with porting, I think that's okay. On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:53 AM Keith Suderman wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson < > david.dawson@simplicityitself.com> wrote: > >> I would vote 2. >> >> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. >> > > We identified a few major things that were broken in the previous alpha > release of > 2.6 but only due to trivial packaging issues, hence the plan to do one > more release. > > > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of > 2.6.0 anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it is > the first and last 2.6.x release expected. > > - Keith > > > Also, Jesper identified a few things that can easily be aligned from 3.0 in > a very short period of time. I am happy to wait for his thumbs up before > proceeding. > > I am also keen on releasing another alpha of 3.0 at the same time as the > 2.6 alpha. > I believe that will make our life easier when answering future > support-oriented questions > about 2.6 on the mailing list going forward. > > So, doing one more alpha release of 2.6 has minimal impact on 3.0 timing > and leaves > us in as clean a state as can be hoped for when retiring a previously > planned branch. > > Cheers, Paul. > > > ---------------------- > Keith Suderman > Research Associate > Department of Computer Science > Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY > suderman@cs.vassar.edu > > > > > --000000000000a6c396056e8cd12e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A non-alpha 2.= 6.0 is a possibility but not my favored approach.

On our roadmap for 3.0 we are still fleshing out nu= merous things:
* we have a version of native lambdas but perhaps = not how our final design might look
* we have to decide wheth= er default methods in interfaces should be implemented using traits (curren= t implementation) or some more native approach
* dit= to for method references (current implementation uses method closures)
* we haven't finished static methods in interfaces
* po= tential indy vs non-indy changes
* potential breaking package nam= e changes
* potential compiler assistance to minimis= e breaking changes

With so many things not quite f= inalised, alpha seems appropriate to me. Also, we want a very clear story a= round what restrictions/compatibility exists for libraries compiled under s= ay 2.5 and used with Groovy 3.0 and vice versa. I am not sure we can do tha= t to the same degree for 2.6 in its current state. Alpha sets a better expe= ctation that there might be restrictions. As an interim version to assist w= ith porting, I think that's okay.


On Thu, Jun= 14, 2018 at 4:53 AM Keith Suderman <suderman@anc.org> wrote:

On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King <= paulk@asert.com.au<= /a>> wrote:



On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson <david.dawson@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
I would vote 2.=

Actually, i would vote 3) aban= don 2.6 immediately.

We i= dentified a few major things that were broken in the previous alpha release= of
2.6 but only due to trivial packaging issues, hence the plan = to do one more release.

=
How about an option #4.=C2=A0 If you are planning to do one more rele= ase of 2.6.0 anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announc= e that it is the first and last 2.6.x release expected.

- Keith


= Also, Jesper identified a few things that can easily be aligned from 3.0 in=
a very short period of time. I am happy to wait for his thumbs u= p before proceeding.

I am also keen on releasing a= nother alpha of 3.0 at the same time as the 2.6 alpha.
I believe = that will make our life easier when answering future support-oriented quest= ions
about 2.6 on the mailing list going forward.

<= /div>
So, doing one more alpha release of 2.6 has minimal impact on 3.0= timing and leaves
us in as clean a state as can be hoped for whe= n retiring a previously planned branch.

Cheers, Pa= ul.


----------------------=
Keith Suderman
Research Associ= ate
Department of Computer Science
Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY
=




--000000000000a6c396056e8cd12e--