Option 3. You can always revisit the 2.6 branch if that becomes necessary. Resources being scarce (as others have said), put them where they are needed on Groovy 3.
-- Bob On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:11 AM, Corum, Michael <mco...@rgare.com> wrote: > If 3.0 will still support JDK8, I’d vote for option 3 as well. If 3 will > require 9, then maybe option 2. > > > > *Michael Corum* > > VP, Technical Architecture Solutions > > > > *RGA Reinsurance Company* > > *16600 Swingley Ridge Road > <https://maps.google.com/?q=16600+Swingley+Ridge+Road+%0D%0A+Chesterfield,+Missouri&entry=gmail&source=g>* > > *Chesterfield, Missouri > <https://maps.google.com/?q=16600+Swingley+Ridge+Road+%0D%0A+Chesterfield,+Missouri&entry=gmail&source=g> > 6301701706* > > *T* 636.736.7066 > > *www.rgare.com <http://www.rgare.com>* > > > > *From: *Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> > *Reply-To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" <users@groovy.apache.org>, " > pa...@asert.com.au" <pa...@asert.com.au> > *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM > *To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" <users@groovy.apache.org> > *Subject: *[DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy > 3.0 > > > > External e-mail. Use caution! / Courriel externe. Faites attention! > ------------------------------ > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to > include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss that right now. > > > > One of the other discussion points was Groovy around 2.6. As many of you > know, we have released alpha versions of Groovy 2.6. That version is a > backport of most but not all of Groovy 3.0 to JDK7 including the Parrot > parser (though it isn't enabled by default). The purpose of this version > has always been to assist people/projects wanting to use the Parrot parser > but who might be stuck on JDK7. So in some sense it is an intermediate > version to assist with porting towards Groovy 3.0. While that is still a > noble goal in theory, in practice, many of our users are already on JDK8 > and we have limited resources to work on many potential areas. > > > > With that in mind, we'd like to understand the preferences in our user > base for the following two options: > > > > Option 1: please continue releasing the best possible 2.6 even if that > slows down the final release of Groovy 3.0 and delays further work on > better support for JDK9+. > > > > Option 2: please release one more alpha of 2.6 over the next month or so > which will become the best version to use to assist porting for users stuck > on JDK7 and then focus on 3.0. The 2.6 branch will essentially be retired > though we will consider PRs from the community for critical fixes. > > > > Feedback welcome. > > > > Cheers, Paul. > > > > >
