On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Daniel Sun wrote:
> Hi Andres,
>
> > I'd suggest to release 2.5.0-beta and 3.0-ea together. Just like the JDK
> > team has been posting JDK9 EA releases, we could do the same. We know for
> > a fact we're going to break things, so let's
It's not a simple decision. A beta isn't something to play with. There are
users, and companies, using Groovy. You cannot simply say "this is new,
let's try this". There are backwards compatibility concerns, as well as
deployment issues. We agreed, a few months ago, to make 3.0 the breaking
On 17.01.2017 10:17, Russel Winder wrote:
[...]
The 2.5 build still creates jars and indy jars. Isn't it about time we
settle this so there are only one set of jars in a build?
right, we should also change to indy by default for the betas
bye jochen
On 17.01.2017 10:04, Cédric Champeau wrote:
My take is simpler than this. If Parrot should be included in 2.5, then
remove the old parser and use it. If it's for 3.0, then it should not
belong to the 2.5 beta, or it should be an external dependency (possibly
tested by adding a jar manually).
On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 10:04 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> My take is simpler than this. If Parrot should be included in 2.5,
> then
> remove the old parser and use it. If it's for 3.0, then it should not
> belong to the 2.5 beta, or it should be an external dependency
> (possibly
> tested by
Can the parrot be packaged as separate jar that can be a dependency? That
way it can be included at will
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 09:56 Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> This is a beta, not the final release, though.
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Cédric Champeau <
>
It should definitely be included, so users can play with Parrot and report
their findings!
Guillaume
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Daniel Sun wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Will the new parser Parrot be included in 2.5.x releases as an
> optional parser? If developers
+1 on all this :-)
I'm impatient to have a beta of 2.5 out!
Guillaume
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Paul King wrote:
> I am thinking we should do a 2.5.0-beta-1 release and possibly a 2.4.9
> in a couple of weeks time. For 2.5.0-beta-1, it would be nice to have
> the