2015-06-08 15:02 GMT+02:00 Winnebeck, Jason <jason.winneb...@windstream.com> :
> If this isn't a clear cut fix then you might want consider leaving it as > it is for backwards compatibility. Groovy already has enough issues with > breaking changes. I agree that we should avoid breaking changes on this on a dot release. It's not really a bugfix but a semantic change. That said, can you elaborate on "Groovy has enough issues with breaking changes"? In general we do a pretty good job I think to preserve compatibility. What problems did you face? Were those problems documented as breaking changes? If not, were they simply bugs?
