jonnybot0 commented on PR #289: URL: https://github.com/apache/groovy-geb/pull/289#issuecomment-3440176963
I'll be honest, I feel ill-equipped to adjudicate this. In my own usage of Geb I've almost exclusively relied on the implicit driver management and not had to worry about the cache. As such, I don't have intuition to rely on when judging how consumers might be using it. For that, @cbmarcum and @Vampire are really the only testimony I have to go on. I think that returning the driver from this method created a contract that we essentially violated in PR https://github.com/apache/groovy-geb/pull/270. Based on the [described behavior](https://groovy.apache.org/geb/manual/current/#implicit-driver-management) in the docs that @Vampire pointed to, I think perhaps the best course is to revert #270 and cut an 8.0.1 release. Then, have another go at fixing the problem #270 was meant to address in some better way. So, order would look like: 1. Merge https://github.com/apache/groovy-geb/pull/291 2. Revert #270 3. Cut an 8.0.1 release (which is being asked for in [other quarters](https://github.com/apache/groovy-geb/pull/285#issuecomment-3427340807)) 4. Go to the mailing list / back to the drawing board for a better way to address #270 that doesn't introduce the new bug. 5. Merge that fix and head forward with an 8.0.2 release. Since you're most impacted, would that path work for both you, @Vampire and you @cbmarcum? Obviously, @Vampire could continue to use 8.0.0 until we could get 8.0.2 out, but folks like @cbmarcum impacted by this problem would be able to use 8.0.1. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
