groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0
Date Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:04:45 GMT
(Views below are my own, but I think a lot of the other NiFi PMC members
would agree)

I think the Groovy users in the Apache NiFi community would benefit far
more from focusing on 3.0 and dropping 2.6. They're already forced to be on
Java 8 because we require it as a baseline for the last several releases of
NiFi. We also have a lot unit and integration tests that use 2.4.X, so a
long release cycle focusing on polishing 3.0 would help us on the testing
and get information out there to users on transitioning production
pipelines that make use of Groovy 2.X in different places.

Thanks,

Mike

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:39 PM Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> wrote:

>
> 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 <suderman@anc.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message