If you think about it, calling it 2.6 is not consistent at all (except from a very formal point of view), since it is, in fact, 3.0-- . (And adding more digits after 2.99/2.97) does not convey any additional meaning and just looks silly imho.)
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Keith Suderman <suder...@anc.org> Datum: 20.05.18 16:28 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 -1 I'm going to rain on the parade. I like consistent versioning and skipping versions is not consistent. Why not 2.999 or 2.9999999 then? - Keith On May 20, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: +1 but alternatively, we could just skip 2.6 and go straight to 3.0. Le dim. 20 mai 2018 à 15:25, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit : 2.9.0 could make people ask themselves where 2.6/2.7/2.8 went, whereas 2.97 is so far from 2.5, that I think people would get that it means more "3.0 minus small, but (significant) delta" (i.e. not just an epsilon, as with 2.99, which Russel suggested). Plus the "7" has a mnemonic quality, making it easier for everyone to remember what the main point of this release was... (2.9 would be much better than 2.6, though...) -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com> Datum: 20.05.18 15:11 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org Cc: pa...@asert.com.au Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 I’d suggest to keep it simple, go with 2.9.0. Sent from my primitive Tricorder On 20 May 2018, at 21:50, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote: What about 2.97 ? Incorporates a JDK 7 reference, and is not too close to 3.0 (Bugfixes could go into 2.97.1 etc..., so the "7" could be kept). -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00) An: pa...@asert.com.au, dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 13:58 +1000, Paul King wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9. > It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small > step up > from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3. > If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your face"? -- Russel. ========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk ----------------------Keith SudermanResearch AssociateDepartment of Computer ScienceVassar College, Poughkeepsie nysuder...@cs.vassar.edu
