+1 On 16 Mar 2017 15:29, "Guillaume Laforge" <glafo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> Earlier in the year, Cédric did a great job of outlining a possible >> roadmap for Groovy. I think there was general consensus on most of it >> but we never quite managed complete consensus. >> >> We had a fairly clear consensus on getting out 2.5 with macro support >> - that is underway now. >> >> There was also consensus around a version of Groovy containing the new >> parrot parser and based around a minimum JDK runtime requirement of >> 1.8 (possibly numbered Groovy 3.0 or 4.0). This is what we'll start >> fleshing out on the master branch. >> >> I believe there was also general consensus around a version of Groovy >> containing a back-ported version of the parrot parser for jdk 1.7 >> (possibly numbered Groovy 2.6 or 3.0). >> >> The main contention seemed to be what level of breaking changes (if >> any) should be allowed in a 2.6 release (vs 3.0 release) etc. I don't >> believe there was a serious divide in opinions, just that without some >> more concrete details about what would actually be in any of the >> various proposed releases, it was difficult to zero in on a final >> roadmap. >> >> Rather than continue debate at a theoretical level about the roadmap, >> I plan to just start fleshing out some more details of the potential >> releases and we can decide when to release and what to call them once >> they are fleshed out further. >> >> With this in mind, I plan to create a 2_6_X branch. The intention will >> be to try out the back-ported parrot to convince ourselves if any >> (significant) breaking changes have been introduced - and >> (potentially) exclude some of Parrot's changes. This branch can be >> considered a bridging version of Groovy for JDK 1.7 users who can't go >> straight to the full 1.8 based version. We can decide later whether >> this branch forms the basis of a 2.6, 3.0 or no release. >> >> This is a lazy consensus vote, so I'll go ahead and create the branch >> in 72 hrs for the purposes described above unless I hear serious >> objections. >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> > > > > -- > Guillaume Laforge > Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President > Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform > > Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ > Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+ > <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts> >
