On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 15:06 +0200, mg wrote: > Is the intention to switch to a rapid major release cycle like Windows, > Java, etc ? If yes: Shouldn't we then call the next major release Groovy 18 > (or 19, depending on year of release) ? > Could also be: groovy 2.6 -> groovy 18.0groovy 3.0 -> groovy 19.0 > What exactly would be in 4.0 ? Going to 4.0 quickly after 3.0 seems to > devalue to me what an old school major release encompasses/means (with > regards to expectations/press coverage/etc)... (?)
As I remember the various argument over the years, the resultant intention has always been for Groovy to have what is effectively semantic versioning. I quite like semantic versioning, I am not a fan of the current Java versioning system even though I can, sort of, understand why they went the route they have. To see why, you just have to look at the Linux 3 → 4 number change. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
