groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniil Ovchinnikov <daniil.ovchinni...@jetbrains.com>
Subject Re: IntelliJ: Full Groovy 2.5.0 Support
Date Sat, 02 Jun 2018 13:52:03 GMT
> none of the child issues to the Groovy 3.0 umbrella issue seems to have any votes
Yep, I should’ve clarified this earlier and invited users to vote. 

> in the end I myself would just upvote every child issue
And this is good. It’s much better than to upvote parent task and forget about it.
At least you will get a notification when each task is closed contrary to umbrella task that
may remain open for a long time.

> I would just do the ones that are quicker to do first
That’s what I’m now doing with 3.0 tasks. But upvotes do matter.

—

Daniil Ovchinnikov
JetBrains


> On 2 Jun 2018, at 02:30, MG <mgbiz@arscreat.com> wrote:
> 
> I just checked, and none of the child issues to the Groovy 3.0 umbrella issue (https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-188050
<https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-188050>) seems to have any votes. I find
that not surprising: As a developer that uses Groovy in place of Java to develop a larger
framework using IntelliJ IDE, I can only use a Groovy feature once it has gotten proper IntelliJ
support. I can toy around with it before that, of course, but to e.g. to finally be able to
get rid of using the new-keyword in my project, IntelliJ support is tantamount. Other new
features will be useful in different ways, other again I will have to check out further, to
find where I can use them best. That makes a meaningful pioritization hard - in the end I
myself would just upvote every child issue...
> 
> Others may see this differently of course, but I need support for all features, as fast
as possible ;-)
> 
> To prioritize, I would just do the ones that are quicker to do first. 
> (Or once you have create the technicl child issues in the way you need them structured,
you can ask people to vote between 2 or 3 issues here / the Groovy Slack... (unless Paul/Jochen/Guillaume/...
object, of course).)
> 
> It would be interesting to learn a little bit about the effort that goes into certain
features, btw,
> Cheers,
> mg
> 
> 
> On 01.06.2018 23:51, mg wrote:
>> Hi Daniil,
>> 
>> I am a bit confused here: For Groovy 3.0 someone created a similar issue, people
voted on it to show that Groovy 3.0 feature support was important to them, you created a handful
of child issues, and everything seemed well & fine :-)
>> How is this different then ?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> mg
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Daniil Ovchinnikov <daniil.ovchinnikov@jetbrains.com> <mailto:daniil.ovchinnikov@jetbrains.com>
>> Datum: 01.06.18 22:42 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org>
>> Betreff: Re: IntelliJ: Full Groovy 2.5.0 Support
>> 
>> Hi mg,
>> 
>> First of all thank you for caring.
>> 
>> I just want to let you know that such abstract tickets have almost zero meaning other
than serving as a parent for other smaller tasks.
>> It would be much more helpful to prioritize if you create a ticket for some particular
feature and let others vote for it.
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> Daniil Ovchinnikov
>> JetBrains
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 21:09, MG <mgbiz@arscreat.com <mailto:mgbiz@arscreat.com>>
wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have created a Jetbrains issue you can vote on for IntelliJ to fully support
Groovy 2.5 as soon as possible :-)
>>> 
>>> https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-193168 <https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/IDEA-193168>
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> mg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message