[DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>]

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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[MG <mg...@arscreat.com>]

Hi Paul,
sensible choice imho :-)
Cheers,
mg


On 23.06.2018 03:53, Paul King wrote:
>
> There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed 
> feedback
> on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead 
> and do one more
> 2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less work than further 
> discussions and it gives
> us a clean end point which I am highly in favour of to reduce 
> subsequent discussions
> about what exactly was in the last alpha release.
>
> We aren't planning to delete the branch - so it's still around if we 
> need some
> further emergency regression fixes down the track, but we aren't 
> planning to do
> any merges, so it will start to go out of sync with other branches. So 
> even if you
> have an "emergency fix" for that branch, we'd encourage you to have a 
> discussion
> on the mailing list before creating PRs against that branch.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:55 AM Robert Stagner <restagner@gmail.com 
> <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     option #2 for me
>
>     On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au
>     <ma...@asert.com.au>> wrote:
>
>
>         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.
>
>

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

["Daniel.Sun" <su...@apache.org>]

As you can see, many fixes/improvements are accumulated in the master
branch[1], i.e. 3.0.0 branch, so groovy 3.0.0 is making progress but moves a
bit slow. We wish 3.0.0 GA could be released next year(2019). Absolutely,
some milestone releases will be released Before GA.

Cheers,
Daniel.Sun

[1] https://github.com/apache/groovy




-----
Daniel Sun 
Apache Groovy committer 
Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me 
Twitter: @daniel_sun 

--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Users-f329450.html

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Merlin Beedell <MB...@cryoserver.com>]

I see a monthly release of the 2.5x product – but nothing similar for version 3.  What might be happening in the V3 world?  Given the license terms change under JDK 11, will the main target be OpenJDK?

Merlin Beedell
From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Sent: 23 June 2018 2:53 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0


There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed feedback
on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead and do one more
2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less work than further discussions and it gives
us a clean end point which I am highly in favour of to reduce subsequent discussions
about what exactly was in the last alpha release.

We aren't planning to delete the branch - so it's still around if we need some
further emergency regression fixes down the track, but we aren't planning to do
any merges, so it will start to go out of sync with other branches. So even if you
have an "emergency fix" for that branch, we'd encourage you to have a discussion
on the mailing list before creating PRs against that branch.

Cheers, Paul.


On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:55 AM Robert Stagner <re...@gmail.com>> wrote:
option #2 for me
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>> wrote:

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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>]

There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed
feedback
on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead and
do one more
2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less work than further discussions
and it gives
us a clean end point which I am highly in favour of to reduce subsequent
discussions
about what exactly was in the last alpha release.

We aren't planning to delete the branch - so it's still around if we need
some
further emergency regression fixes down the track, but we aren't planning
to do
any merges, so it will start to go out of sync with other branches. So even
if you
have an "emergency fix" for that branch, we'd encourage you to have a
discussion
on the mailing list before creating PRs against that branch.

Cheers, Paul.


On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 8:55 AM Robert Stagner <re...@gmail.com> wrote:

> option #2 for me
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Robert Stagner <re...@gmail.com>]

option #2 for me

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Corum, Michael <mc...@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.
>
>
>
Groovy 3.0 has JDK8 as minimum.

Cheers, Paul.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Eric Helgeson <er...@gmail.com>]

Agree with option 3 as well. If you're stuck on pre jdk8 and have groovy
2.5 - that's a pretty good situation. JDK9/10/11+ compatibility is the
direction the language needs to go.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:19 AM sigzero <si...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <mc...@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" <us...@groovy.apache.org>, "
>> paulk@asert.com.au" <pa...@asert.com.au>
>> *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM
>> *To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" <us...@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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[sigzero <si...@gmail.com>]

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 <mc...@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" <us...@groovy.apache.org>, "
> paulk@asert.com.au" <pa...@asert.com.au>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM
> *To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" <us...@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.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

["Corum, Michael" <mc...@rgare.com>]

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
Chesterfield, Missouri 6301701706
T 636.736.7066
www.rgare.com

From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Reply-To: "users@groovy.apache.org" <us...@groovy.apache.org>, "paulk@asert.com.au" <pa...@asert.com.au>
Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM
To: "users@groovy.apache.org" <us...@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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[MG <mg...@arscreat.com>]

Option 2 or 3 from my side.
I have thought about this, and given the fast movement of the Java 
universe at the moment it seems the right move, from a resources and 
public perception point of view.

Also, Groovy 2.5 is not too shabby, so still being on JDK 7 it is not 
like "no Groovy for you" ;-)

Cheers,
mg


On 6/13/2018 9:05 AM, Paul King wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Christian Sperandio <ch...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

For me, Groovy 3.0 is the most important thing.

Chris

Le mer. 13 juin 2018 à 09:06, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> a écrit :

>
> 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.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[James Kleeh <ja...@gmail.com>]

I strongly advocate for option 2. I think the biggest threat to the future of Groovy is JDK9 support.

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

["J. David Beutel" <li...@getsu.com>]

Option 2 or 3.  I'm running Grails 2.5.3 on JDK 8, although I intend to 
upgrade to the current versions, when I have the time for that.


On 2018-06-13 07:53 , Scott Hickey wrote:
> I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to 
> recognize that enterprises can't always move quickly to current 
> versions of Java.
>
> At Mutual of Omaha, we do have almost everything running on JDK 8 now. 
> We are actively trying to get our few remaining Grails 2.x versions 
> upgraded to a current version of Grails.
>
> I don't think that focusing only on Groovy 3 at this point would 
> adversely affect our company.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au 
> <ma...@asert.com.au>> wrote:
>
>
>     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.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Scott Hickey <js...@gmail.com>]

I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to
recognize that enterprises can't always move quickly to current versions of
Java.

At Mutual of Omaha, we do have almost everything running on JDK 8 now. We
are actively trying to get our few remaining Grails 2.x versions upgraded
to a current version of Grails.

I don't think that focusing only on Groovy 3 at this point would adversely
affect our company.


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Mike Thomsen <mi...@gmail.com>]

(Views below are my own, but I think a lot of the other NiFi PMC members
would agree)

I think the Groovy users in the Apache NiFi community would benefit far
more from focusing on 3.0 and dropping 2.6. They're already forced to be on
Java 8 because we require it as a baseline for the last several releases of
NiFi. We also have a lot unit and integration tests that use 2.4.X, so a
long release cycle focusing on polishing 3.0 would help us on the testing
and get information out there to users on transitioning production
pipelines that make use of Groovy 2.X in different places.

Thanks,

Mike

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:39 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:

>
> 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 <su...@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.dawson@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
>> suderman@cs.vassar.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>]

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 <su...@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.dawson@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
> suderman@cs.vassar.edu
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Wilson MacGyver <wm...@gmail.com>]

I too vote for option 3.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I vote for option 3
>
> Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk> a
> écrit :
>
>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
>> > >
>> […]
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> I think this would be a bad idea. We haven't had any beta releases, nor RC
>> releases. To jump to a final release strikes me as failure of proper
>> process.
>>
>> Also leaving 2.6.0-alpha-3 as the last 2.6 release clearly indicates it
>> is a
>> retired version series. It also leaves it open much better for someone to
>> pick
>> it up should they so wish.
>>
>> --
>> Russel.
>> ===========================================
>> Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
>> 41 Buckmaster Road
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=41+Buckmaster+Road&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> m: +44 7770 465 077
>> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
>>
>


-- 
Omnem crede diem tibi diluxisse supremum.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>]

I vote for option 3

Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk> a écrit :

> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
> > >
> […]
> > 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.
> >
>
> I think this would be a bad idea. We haven't had any beta releases, nor RC
> releases. To jump to a final release strikes me as failure of proper
> process.
>
> Also leaving 2.6.0-alpha-3 as the last 2.6 release clearly indicates it is
> a
> retired version series. It also leaves it open much better for someone to
> pick
> it up should they so wish.
>
> --
> 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: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>]

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote:
> > 
[…]
> 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.
> 

I think this would be a bad idea. We haven't had any beta releases, nor RC
releases. To jump to a final release strikes me as failure of proper process.

Also leaving 2.6.0-alpha-3 as the last 2.6 release clearly indicates it is a
retired version series. It also leaves it open much better for someone to pick
it up should they so wish.

-- 
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: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Keith Suderman <su...@anc.org>]

> 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.dawson@simplicityitself.com <ma...@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
suderman@cs.vassar.edu

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson <
david.dawson@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.

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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[h2...@abula.org]

Bloated, is the word I was looking for...

Den 2018-06-13 19:46, skrev h2gr@abula.org:
> I did come from Java myself, and I understand the argument to ease the
> transition from Java to Groovy, but as Java adopts language features
> from Groovy, I worry that supporting both syntaxes will create a more
> complex language with more options, more stuff to learn, and less
> clarity.
> 
> Besides, in my experience developers are quite able to handle
> different languages. Granted, Groovy should be easy to read and
> understand for developers coming from Java (and other) languages, but
> not every language feature in other languages need to be valid Groovy
> code as well.
> 
> H2
> 
> 
> Den 2018-06-13 17:24, skrev MG:
>> On 6/13/2018 10:24 AM, h2gr@abula.org wrote:
>>> (I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of 
>>> the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I 
>>> need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.)
>> 
>> Java-syntax-compatibility-only-support in Groovy is not there to be
>> used by Groovy developers (see previous discussions about warning when
>> using these constructs), but to support copy & paste compatibility for
>> people considering switching from Java.
>> I understand where you are coming from, but imho the closesness to
>> Java always has been another strong argument for Groovy, and
>> considering supporting Java syntax constructs in Groovy 3.0 through
>> the Parrot parser seems pretty straightforward I think we should keep
>> doing this.
>> 
>> An alternative would be to support a tool which auto-converts from
>> Java to Groovy (I would estimate this would be more effort, and it
>> does not really give the "copy & paste Java code and it is Groovy"
>> experience). Or IntelliJ/Eclipse/Netbeans could support this as part
>> of their respective code refactoring support...
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> mg
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia:
>>>> I would say 3 as well
>>>> 
>>>> 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald 
>>>> <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects
>>>>> are still on Grails 2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius
>>>>> <so...@glasius.dk>:
>>>>> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I
>>>>> think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge
>>>>> projects on to a higher version of Grails as well).
>>>>> 
>>>>> /Søren
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>>> 
>>>>> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> FROM: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
>>>>> SENT: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
>>>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>>> SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> p
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson
>>>>> <da...@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would vote 2.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>>>>> 
>>>>> FROM: paulk@asert.com.au
>>>>> 
>>>>> SENT: 13 June 2018 08:06
>>>>> 
>>>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> REPLY TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> SUBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Søren Berg Glasius
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
>>>>> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
>>>>> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
>>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[h2...@abula.org]

I did come from Java myself, and I understand the argument to ease the 
transition from Java to Groovy, but as Java adopts language features 
from Groovy, I worry that supporting both syntaxes will create a more 
complex language with more options, more stuff to learn, and less 
clarity.

Besides, in my experience developers are quite able to handle different 
languages. Granted, Groovy should be easy to read and understand for 
developers coming from Java (and other) languages, but not every 
language feature in other languages need to be valid Groovy code as 
well.

H2


Den 2018-06-13 17:24, skrev MG:
> On 6/13/2018 10:24 AM, h2gr@abula.org wrote:
>> (I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of 
>> the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I 
>> need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.)
> 
> Java-syntax-compatibility-only-support in Groovy is not there to be
> used by Groovy developers (see previous discussions about warning when
> using these constructs), but to support copy & paste compatibility for
> people considering switching from Java.
> I understand where you are coming from, but imho the closesness to
> Java always has been another strong argument for Groovy, and
> considering supporting Java syntax constructs in Groovy 3.0 through
> the Parrot parser seems pretty straightforward I think we should keep
> doing this.
> 
> An alternative would be to support a tool which auto-converts from
> Java to Groovy (I would estimate this would be more effort, and it
> does not really give the "copy & paste Java code and it is Groovy"
> experience). Or IntelliJ/Eclipse/Netbeans could support this as part
> of their respective code refactoring support...
> 
> Cheers,
> mg
> 
> 
>> 
>> Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia:
>>> I would say 3 as well
>>> 
>>> 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald 
>>> <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>> 
>>>> Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects
>>>> are still on Grails 2.
>>>> 
>>>> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius
>>>> <so...@glasius.dk>:
>>>> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I
>>>> think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge
>>>> projects on to a higher version of Grails as well).
>>>> 
>>>> /Søren
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>> 
>>>> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>>>> 
>>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards
>>>> 
>>>> FROM: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
>>>> SENT: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
>>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>> SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>> 
>>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>> 
>>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> p
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson
>>>> <da...@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I would vote 2.
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>>>> 
>>>> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>>>> 
>>>> FROM: paulk@asert.com.au
>>>> 
>>>> SENT: 13 June 2018 08:06
>>>> 
>>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> REPLY TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>> 
>>>> SUBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> -- Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
>>>> 
>>>> Søren Berg Glasius
>>>> 
>>>> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
>>>> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
>>>> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[MG <mg...@arscreat.com>]

On 6/13/2018 10:24 AM, h2gr@abula.org wrote:
> (I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of 
> the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I 
> need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.)

Java-syntax-compatibility-only-support in Groovy is not there to be used 
by Groovy developers (see previous discussions about warning when using 
these constructs), but to support copy & paste compatibility for people 
considering switching from Java.
I understand where you are coming from, but imho the closesness to Java 
always has been another strong argument for Groovy, and considering 
supporting Java syntax constructs in Groovy 3.0 through the Parrot 
parser seems pretty straightforward I think we should keep doing this.

An alternative would be to support a tool which auto-converts from Java 
to Groovy (I would estimate this would be more effort, and it does not 
really give the "copy & paste Java code and it is Groovy" experience). 
Or IntelliJ/Eclipse/Netbeans could support this as part of their 
respective code refactoring support...

Cheers,
mg


>
> Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia:
>> I would say 3 as well
>>
>> 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald <ro...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects
>>> are still on Grails 2.
>>>
>>> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius
>>> <so...@glasius.dk>:
>>> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I
>>> think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge
>>> projects on to a higher version of Grails as well).
>>>
>>> /Søren
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>
>>> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>>>
>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>> FROM: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
>>> SENT: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>> SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>
>>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>>
>>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> p
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson
>>> <da...@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would vote 2.
>>>
>>> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>>>
>>> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>>>
>>> FROM: paulk@asert.com.au
>>>
>>> SENT: 13 June 2018 08:06
>>>
>>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>
>>> REPLY TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>>>
>>> SUBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>>> Groovy 3.0
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
>>>
>>> Søren Berg Glasius
>>>
>>> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
>>> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
>>> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[h2...@abula.org]

I say 3.

(I may be alone on this one, but I'd even suggest to consider some of 
the Java syntax compatibility, if this helps speed up Groovy 3. If I 
need to write Java code, I can always put it in .java files.)

Haakon Hansen



Den 2018-06-13 10:08, skrev Mario Garcia:
> I would say 3 as well
> 
> 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald <ro...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects
>> are still on Grails 2.
>> 
>> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius
>> <so...@glasius.dk>:
>> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I
>> think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge
>> projects on to a higher version of Grails as well).
>> 
>> /Søren
>> 
>> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>> 
>> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>> 
>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> 
>> FROM: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
>> SENT: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>> SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>> Groovy 3.0
>> 
>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>> 
>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are
>> concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases
>> (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> p
>> 
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson
>> <da...@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I would vote 2.
>> 
>> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>> 
>> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>> 
>> FROM: paulk@asert.com.au
>> 
>> SENT: 13 June 2018 08:06
>> 
>> TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>> 
>> REPLY TO: users@groovy.apache.org
>> 
>> SUBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>> Groovy 3.0
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
>> 
>> Søren Berg Glasius
>> 
>> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
>> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
>> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Mario Garcia <ma...@gmail.com>]

I would say 3 as well

2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald <ro...@gmail.com>:

> Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects are
> still on Grails 2.
>
>
> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius <so...@glasius.dk>:
>
> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think
> that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to a
> higher version of Grails as well).
>
> /Søren
>
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>
>>
>>
>> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned
>> about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including
>> GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
>> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
>> Groovy 3.0
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>>
>>
>>
>> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned
>> about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including
>> GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> p
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson <david.dawson@
>> simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>>
>> I would vote 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* paulk@asert.com.au
>>
>> *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06
>>
>> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
>>
>> *Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org
>>
>> *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy
>> 3.0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
>
> Søren Berg Glasius
>
> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Robert Oschwald <ro...@gmail.com>]

Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects are still on Grails 2.


> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius <so...@glasius.dk>:
> 
> While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to a higher version of Grails as well). 
> 
> /Søren 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <William.W.Mangum@wellsfargo.com <ma...@wellsfargo.com>> wrote:
> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). 
> 
>  
> 
> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
> 
>  
> 
> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support. 
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 
>  
> 
> From: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
> To: users@groovy.apache.org <ma...@groovy.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0
> 
>  
> 
> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). 
> 
>  
> 
> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> p
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson <david.dawson@simplicityitself.com <ma...@simplicityitself.com>> wrote:
> 
> I would vote 2.
> 
>  
> 
> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
> 
>  
> 
> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
> 
>  
> 
> From: paulk@asert.com.au <ma...@asert.com.au>
> Sent: 13 June 2018 08:06
> 
> To: users@groovy.apache.org <ma...@groovy.apache.org>
> Reply to: users@groovy.apache.org <ma...@groovy.apache.org>
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
> 
> Søren Berg Glasius
> 
> Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
> Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
> --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Søren Berg Glasius <so...@glasius.dk>]

While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think
that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to a
higher version of Grails as well).

/Søren

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <Wi...@wellsfargo.com> wrote:

> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>
>
>
> JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.
>
>
>
> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned
> about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including
> GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> *From:* Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on
> Groovy 3.0
>
>
>
> I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).
>
>
>
> Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned
> about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including
> GraalVM), more than legacy support.
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> p
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson <
> david.dawson@simplicityitself.com> wrote:
>
> I would vote 2.
>
>
>
> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>
>
>
> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>
>
>
> *From:* paulk@asert.com.au
>
> *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06
>
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
>
> *Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org
>
> *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy
> 3.0
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-- 

Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,

Søren Berg Glasius

Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
--- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Wi...@wellsfargo.com]

I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).

JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility.

Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.

Best Regards

From: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM
To: users@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).

Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support.


Cheers,
p

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson <da...@simplicityitself.com>> wrote:
I would vote 2.

Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.

No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.

From: paulk@asert.com.au<ma...@asert.com.au>
Sent: 13 June 2018 08:06
To: users@groovy.apache.org<ma...@groovy.apache.org>
Reply to: users@groovy.apache.org<ma...@groovy.apache.org>
Subject: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0



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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Paolo Di Tommaso <pa...@gmail.com>]

I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately).

Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned
about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including
GraalVM), more than legacy support.


Cheers,
p

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson <
david.dawson@simplicityitself.com> wrote:

> I would vote 2.
>
> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>
> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>
> *From:* paulk@asert.com.au
> *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy
> 3.0
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

[Alessio Stalla <al...@gmail.com>]

2 for me as well.

Il mer 13 giu 2018, 09:11 David Dawson <da...@simplicityitself.com>
ha scritto:

> I would vote 2.
>
> Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately.
>
> No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7.
>
> *From:* paulk@asert.com.au
> *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06
> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org
> *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy
> 3.0
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>