On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 18:02 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> I don't think calling it 3.0-jdk7 is a good thing to do: the runtime
> would
> be different, with different bugs. Plus, it would add confusion on
> some
> build tools, with random dependencies on jdk7, or indy, or ...
>
> I think we shoul
I don't think calling it 3.0-jdk7 is a good thing to do: the runtime would
be different, with different bugs. Plus, it would add confusion on some
build tools, with random dependencies on jdk7, or indy, or ...
I think we should focus on getting 2.5 out, and then go with 3.0 asap.
2018-03-12 17:58
Calling it 3.0.0-jdk7 would reduce confusion and increase 3.0 adaption
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:04 PM Russel Winder wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 12:23 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> > 2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't
> > backport easily without a JVM8).
> > Mos
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 12:23 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> 2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't
> backport easily without a JVM8).
> Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is
> where
> our focus should be ... soon.
> 2.6 is meant to help people
2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't
backport easily without a JVM8).
Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is where
our focus should be ... soon.
2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck on
JDK7. Given it has
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> [...] Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and
> 3.0.x.
>
I am hoping that's where we are by the end of the year.
Cheers, Paul.
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:24 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> […]
>
> Where does 2.6.x git into this?
>
[…]
s/git/fit/
>
--
Russel.
===
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:12 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We
> have a
> long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master. Given
> the
> number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us down, and
>
Hi Cédric,
Before 2.5.0 GA is out, we have to maintain 2.4.x IMO.
According to the original plan, 2.5.x will be a short life release, we
will focus on 2.6.x and 3.0.x soon.
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
I do. It's long overdue that 2.5 should be out. By working on 4 (!)
different branches, we just can't manage to publish 2.5, this is a shame.
2018-03-11 15:23 GMT+01:00 Mauro Molinari :
> Il 11/03/2018 15:12, Cédric Champeau ha scritto:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm wondering if it's reasonable to con
Il 11/03/2018 15:12, Cédric Champeau ha scritto:
Hi folks,
I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We
have a long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master.
Given the number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us
down, and we need to move for
11 matches
Mail list logo
