It seems a bit weird to leave this thread dangling after the dramatic entry scene.
The activity on master branch seems to indicate some changes were decided: danielsun1106 committed 2 days ago : Revert "GROOVY-8543: Support setting compileStatic by default via sys… danielsun1106 committed 18 hours ago : GROOVY-7204: Static type checking and compilation fail when multiple … danielsun1106 committed 14 hours ago : Simplify finding generics implementation class However, the meta-concern by Cedric was not addressed it seems. Why is anyone directly working on the master branch of groovy? Is there a technical reason for this, rather than using feature branches, code reviews, and merge approvals? Or is it just that nobody would have time to review in a timely fashion anyway, so it's either that or zero progress? On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 7:43 AM, MG <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07.05.2018 17:54, Cédric Champeau wrote: >> >> I'd typically very much prefer a custom file extension for example. > > > That would be my preferred way to give anyone a simple mean to choose static > compilation as the default for a Groovy file. Afair the counter argument > was, that Groovy compiles any file with any extension in dynamic mode by > default, so this might be a breaking change if someone has used the picked > extension for his files. Groovy 3.0 might be the right spot to introduce > something like this, since there will be breaking changes anyway... > >> That said, since I'm not contributing code anymore (my last contribution >> was rewriting most of the build, which I hope was helpful), > > > Any improvement/speedup of the Gradle build was _definitely_ appreciated :-) > >> I'm happy to step down and let you work as you wish. > > > This is tricky: One cannot agree with just any direction someone who invests > the time to advance Groovy wants to take it too, that would be taking > Doocracy too far, imho, and might lead to a Groovy which is much worse than > it could be. > In this particular case I am torn: I think we could definitely live with the > system property, I don't feel there is a large probability that it will > break anything. On the other hand, using the existing mechanism, or > introducing a static compilation source file extension, or a compiler switch > seem to me to be the better choices - but maybe Daniel can explain why he > went with the property approach ?-) > > Cheers, > mg > > >
