A non-alpha 2.6.0 is a possibility but not my favored approach. On our roadmap for 3.0 we are still fleshing out numerous things: * we have a version of native lambdas but perhaps not how our final design might look * we have to decide whether default methods in interfaces should be implemented using traits (current implementation) or some more native approach * ditto for method references (current implementation uses method closures) * we haven't finished static methods in interfaces * potential indy vs non-indy changes * potential breaking package name changes * potential compiler assistance to minimise breaking changes
With so many things not quite finalised, alpha seems appropriate to me. Also, we want a very clear story around what restrictions/compatibility exists for libraries compiled under say 2.5 and used with Groovy 3.0 and vice versa. I am not sure we can do that to the same degree for 2.6 in its current state. Alpha sets a better expectation that there might be restrictions. As an interim version to assist with porting, I think that's okay. On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:53 AM Keith Suderman <suder...@anc.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson < > david.daw...@simplicityitself.com> wrote: > >> I would vote 2. >> >> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. >> > > We identified a few major things that were broken in the previous alpha > release of > 2.6 but only due to trivial packaging issues, hence the plan to do one > more release. > > > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of > 2.6.0 anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it is > the first and last 2.6.x release expected. > > - Keith > > > Also, Jesper identified a few things that can easily be aligned from 3.0 in > a very short period of time. I am happy to wait for his thumbs up before > proceeding. > > I am also keen on releasing another alpha of 3.0 at the same time as the > 2.6 alpha. > I believe that will make our life easier when answering future > support-oriented questions > about 2.6 on the mailing list going forward. > > So, doing one more alpha release of 2.6 has minimal impact on 3.0 timing > and leaves > us in as clean a state as can be hoped for when retiring a previously > planned branch. > > Cheers, Paul. > > > ---------------------- > Keith Suderman > Research Associate > Department of Computer Science > Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY > suder...@cs.vassar.edu > > > > >
