groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:39:24 GMT
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