-1 Do not proceed because ... * Rapid fix is feasible I can resolve the outstanding SiteMesh 3 issues in two weeks when my schedule frees up.
* Risk of a major functional regression Downgrading to SiteMesh 2 undoes years of improvements and re-introduces bugs that 7.x has already eliminated. * Breaks the entire 7.x plugin ecosystem Every plugin released for Grails 7 compiled with this reversion will not be compatible with future releases. This will force developers to have to re-release plugins during the next release cycle further fragmenting the community. * Relies on obsolete, unmaintained code The proposal pulls in a fork last touched in 2009. Maintaining that branch ourselves means assuming full responsibility for a decade of missing security patches and refactorings. * Licensing back-slide SiteMesh 3 is Apache 2.0. The 2.x codebase is still under the non-standard OpenSymphony license—one of the main reasons we migrated in the first place. Reversion complicates legal compliance for commercial users. * Unrealistic test coverage Grails 7 has been running SiteMesh 3 for 15 months across thousands of CI cycles. By contrast, SiteMesh 2 would receive very little time testing before a major release—insufficient to surface edge-case failures. * Wrong 2.x baseline If we must downgrade, the logical starting point is the actively developed 2.5/2.7 line, not the hastily patched 2.6.0 snapshot. Anything else magnifies technical debt. * Opportunity cost Diverting resources to re-integrate and stabilise SiteMesh 2 moves the project “ten steps backward.” Investing the same effort into fixing the few outstanding issues keeps Grails on a modern, maintained stack and delivers value sooner. On 2025/07/02 15:58:16 James Daugherty wrote: > Per discussion [1] and the unanimous feedback in the weekly meeting, I'd > like to propose we revert to Sitemesh 2.x for Grails 7. Please see the > thread for the reasons, but the initial work is here: > https://github.com/apache/grails-core/tree/issue14193 The goal would be > to revert, and work through any issues as they come up. > > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if all binding votes are > cast in favor. > > [] +1 proceed with the proposal > [] 0 I don't have a strong opinion about this, but I assume it's ok > [] -1 Do not proceed because ... > > Here is my vote: > > +1 (binding) > > -James > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/8lynrl0yd6ykn749md1g2wjb8jph3s5l >
