You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com> on 2018/03/11 14:12:07 UTC
Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
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 forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2
branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
WDYT?
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@tiscali.it>:
> 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 forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2
>> branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Isn't 2.5 still beta? Do you think to stop supporting any stable release?
>
> --
>
> Mauro Molinari
> E-mail: mauromol@tiscali.it
>
>
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Mauro Molinari <ma...@tiscali.it>.
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 forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only
> maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
>
> WDYT?
>
Isn't 2.5 still beta? Do you think to stop supporting any stable release?
--
Mauro Molinari
E-mail: mauromol@tiscali.it
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by "Daniel.Sun" <su...@apache.org>.
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
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>.
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 should focus on getting 2.5 out, and then go with 3.0
> asap.
The implication is to ignore Groovy 3.0.0 on JDK7. This sounds like A
Very Good Idea™
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
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 GMT+01:00 Wilson MacGyver <wm...@gmail.com>:
> 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 <ru...@winder.org.uk>
> 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).
>> > 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 limitations
>> > anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release
>> > -
>> > unless other community
>> > members contributed the PRs to advance it.
>> >
>>
>> Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0-
>> jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is?
>>
>> > >
>> --
>> Russel.
>> ===========================================
>> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 <+44%2020%207585%202200>
>> 41 Buckmaster Road
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=41+Buckmaster+Road&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> m: +44 7770 465 077 <+44%207770%20465077>
>> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
>>
>
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Wilson MacGyver <wm...@gmail.com>.
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 <ru...@winder.org.uk> 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).
> > 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 limitations
> > anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release
> > -
> > unless other community
> > members contributed the PRs to advance it.
> >
>
> Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0-
> jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is?
>
> > >
> --
> Russel.
> ===========================================
> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
> 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
>
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>.
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 start moving towards Parrot who are stuck
> on
> JDK7. Given it has limitations
> anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release
> -
> unless other community
> members contributed the PRs to advance it.
>
Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0-
jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is?
> >
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
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 limitations
anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release -
unless other community
members contributed the PRs to advance it.
Cheers, Paul.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:24 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
> > […]
> >
> > Where does 2.6.x fit into this?
> >
> […]
>
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>.
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:24 +0000, 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 Road m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>.
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
> we
> need to move forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2
> branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
>
> WDYT?
Where does 2.6.x git into this?
But yes having fewer maintained versions makes sense not just because
it saves developer hassle, but it makes things clearer for users, to
many of whom seem to think running ancient versions of things in the
face of having better, newer, versions is acceptable.
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com
> 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.