Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

or breaking changes. From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:25 AM To: dev@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 Re "what's the rationale of supporting Java 7". The whole idea originall

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

e. >>> without breaking changes). >>> Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which >>> would be much more confusing... >>> >>> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect, >>> clean-room-world we

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

using... >> >> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect, >> clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion... >> >> >> ---- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---- >> Von: Thibault Kruse <tibokr...@googlemail.com> >> Da

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

mail.com> > Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00) > An: dev@groovy.apache.org, pa...@asert.com.au > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 > > If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch > continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

ving this discussion... Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Thibault Kruse <tibokr...@googlemail.com> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org, pa...@asert.com.au Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseea

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added 2.9. What would you think about any other project versioning like that? Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are missing and that people stop to think is a good thing. We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With semantic versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes. So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

On 21.05.2018 17:32, Guillaume Laforge wrote: In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at least once or twice. It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care all that much, and usually even forget about it :-) not long ago I have been asked

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

I don't have strong feelings on it, but I think I'd lean against it since we've already released artifacts under the 2.6 banner. 1. It can be confusing when looking in somewhere like Maven Central that the already released 2.6 artifacts are in the same line as 2.9 (one might conclude

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at least once or twice. It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care all that much, and usually even forget about it :-) That said, I don't have a strong opinion. To Russel's points, we might save us

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8 might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those versions. On

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 16:01 +0200, Cédric Champeau wrote: > +1 but alternatively, we could just skip 2.6 and go straight to 3.0. > The point here being should Groovy continue to support JDK7? I'd say no, people who insist on using JDK7 have Groovy 2.4.15, if they want Groovy 3.0.0then upgrade

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

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 2.999 then? -

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

uld be much better than 2.6, though...) > > > Ursprüngliche Nachricht > Von: Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com <mailto:aalmi...@gmail.com>> > Datum: 20.05.18 15:11 (GMT+01:00) > An: dev@groovy.apache.org <mailto:dev@groovy.apache.org> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

t; > (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 > &

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

"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

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

sert.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

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Hi Paul, +1 As the main version before 3.0.0 is 2.6 currently, I think renumbering 2.6 to 2.9 can reflect the changes in 2.6 better. Cheers, Daniel.Sun -- Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Is there a web page somewhere that explains the vision (so to speak) of what features will go into 3.0 and what will go in the version preceding it? Or is it roughly the same content but targeting different Java versions? Remko > On May 20, 2018, at 12:58, Paul King