Remko Could you add a link to Gitbox ? El vie., 11 may. 2018 a las 17:52, Remko Popma (<remko.po...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> Over at Log4j we just decided to migrate from git-wip-us to gitbox > <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/logging-dev/201804.mbox/%3CCACmp6komnUBd-ug7durT7PoSAzgRzBy%2BpmGgWM_7BkMeaj6ksw%40mail.gmail.com%3E> > . > > Using gitbox will allow our projects to integrate better with GitHub >> including the ability to merge PRs directly from the site and the ability >> to push commits to GitHub and have them be automatically mirrored back to >> Apache. > > > This may be interesting for Groovy also. > We haven't made the move yet so I can't give you feedback from first-hand > experience. > > Remko > > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:32 AM, Mario Garcia <mario.g...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> *About Static Compilation changes:* >> >> I've used the way it's documented in the official documentation, and I >> agree with Cedric, I don't like having a system property. I see more >> benefits using the compiler configuration file: >> >> - Configuration is more fine grained (apply to all, apply to some >> classes, apply to some packages...) >> - All compilation configuration can be found in one place. Having >> more than one place to do this could be error prone, and harder to >> maintain. >> - System properties are normally used when the process should vary >> depending on the environment. In this case, I'm wondering why I would want >> to compile my code statically in one environment but dynamically in >> another. Maybe there is a case for that, but to me is weird. >> >> *About Daniel response:* >> >> I'm so sad to hear that Daniel. In the past few years I've been hearing >> only amazing things coming from your contributions. Like someone has >> mentioned, Groovy 3 wouldn't be the same without you. I really hope you >> could reconsider your decision and keep contributing to Groovy. >> >> *About doing commits on master:* >> >> Reading the "Contributing code" section, at groovy-lang.org it seems >> everybody should be creating a local branch and to a MR afterwards over the >> remote version of that local branch. So (again, reading the >> documentation) nobody should be adding commits to master directly. >> >> I think merge requests are essential. I'm reading Jochen is saying that >> this is not very straight forward with Github. Could anyone please explain >> why ? Knowing the pains may help finding the solution. >> >> My two cents >> Mario >> >> El vie., 11 may. 2018 3:42, Thibault Kruse <tibokr...@googlemail.com> >> escribió: >> >>> 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 <mg...@arscreat.com> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >
