The variant sounds pragmatic to me. Guillaume
Le lun. 8 août 2022, 13:24, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> a écrit : > Hi folks, > > We never really resolved a clear direction for our on-going plans in > terms of when to bump our minimum version. There was a poll on twitter > back when this discussion started: > > https://twitter.com/ApacheGroovy/status/1524255310923595776 > > That shows a keen interest in bumping up our minimum version but still > a reasonable percentage of folks wanting the status quo. > > The two obvious choices are: > (1) Stick with JDK8 for Groovy 5 and bump for Groovy 6 - the > implications being we defer numerous activities that depend on the > bump or branch off Groovy 6 earlier rather than later. The downside in > having many branches is that it increases our load when > cherry-picking/porting fixes across branches. > (2) Lock in JDK11 for Groovy 5 (we spoke of potentially jumping to > JDK17 if a compelling reason pushed us in that direction - but so far > there hasn't been such a reason, so I am suggesting we defer that part > of the decision for now). This means that bigger changes for JDK8 > might cause 4.1, 4.2, 4.x branches in the future. > > I'd like to suggest a variant of (2). We start off by bumping master > to JDK11. If, before we release Groovy 5, we do end up with a bigger > change appearing that might be nice to push back to JDK8, we reserve > the right to bump the version in master to 6 and backport such a > change onto a newly created 5_0_X branch. > > Thoughts? > > Cheers, Paul. > > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:44 AM Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)" <eric.mil...@thomsonreuters.com> > > > To: "dev" <dev@groovy.apache.org> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:59:52 PM > > > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning > > > > > I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods > > > (GROOVY-8299, GROOVY-9801, GROOVY-10000) for Groovy 5. There was > discussion on > > > what was needed for this at one point. Does anyone remember if Java 8 > was > > > holding us back in this area? > > > > It does not, Java the language only adds interface private methods in > Java 9 but the VM already supports them since 8. > > > > As a trivia, the support in the VM was added in 8 to be able to desugar > the body of a lambda as a private method (static or not) when a lambda is > used inside a default method. > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8299 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-9801 > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10000 > > > > regards, > > Rémi > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Daniel Sun <sun...@apache.org> > > > Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2022 1:21 PM > > > To: dev@groovy.apache.org > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning > > > > > > External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. > > > > > > Hi Jochen, > > > > > > I agree with you. The manpower is always a big problem... > > > > > > As for the Groovy 5 itself, I wonder what features we should add > to the release. > > > I think following Java's steps is right, but Groovy should have > its own > > > evolving plan. Also, I think polishing Groovy 4 is important too, > e.g. fixing > > > issues and improving performance. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Daniel Sun > > > On 2022/06/26 21:55:33 Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > >> On 26.06.22 19:39, Daniel Sun wrote: > > >> > AFAIK, quite a lot of Groovy users are still using Java 8 because > their company > > >> > have no plan to upgrade systems to run on Java 9+. It is especially > common for > > >> > bank systems I have been working on for years, so it's better to > continue > > >> > supporting Java 8 in Groovy 5 releases. > > >> > > >> When is it likely for them to change? If we go by the Oracle extended > > >> support it would mean to have Java8 in till 2030. > > >> > > >> if we had the manpower I would suggest making a java8 version of > > >> Groovy 5. But I think that is not realistic. It will be difficult to > > >> support deprecated/removed API. I mean it is a bit more than in the > > >> past where it was about backporting features to older Java versions or > > >> enabling language only features on older Java versions. The > > >> alternative would then be to not to support that feature anymore... > > >> like for example the SecurityManager. But would such a Groovy-Version > > >> still be useful in its current usage? > > >> > > >> > > >> bye Jochen >
