You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Pascal Schumacher <pa...@gmx.net> on 2015/05/01 09:20:28 UTC
Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Hello everybody,
what about a release of Groovy 2.4.4?
Sure only a handful of bugs were fixed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY/fixforversion/12331941/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-issues-panel
but there have been significant additions to the documentation:
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_interacting_with_a_sql_database
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_the_groovy_ant_task
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_filetreebuilder
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_staxbuilder
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_saxbuilder
* http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_nodebuilder
* All links to the old groovy repository changed to the apache github
mirror.
* A lot of corrections across the board.
-Pascal
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
Yes. But my point of view is that we should try to make a release as if it
was a TLP one. Thus try to address all issues before.
Le 1 mai 2015 18:43, "Jochen Theodorou" <bl...@gmx.org> a écrit :
> Am 01.05.2015 18:38, schrieb Cédric Champeau:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The same is true for the version number which has to contain
>> -incubating. This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers
>> to
>> those questions, I would not release.
>>
>>
>> I don't see why the first release has to be perfect right away
>>
>> The sooner we go out of incubation the better :)
>>
>
> While that is true, I don't expect us out of incubation within 3 months,
> because of community building. And by then we can have another release
> anyway.
>
> bye blackdrag
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
>
>
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 01.05.2015 18:38, schrieb Cédric Champeau:
>
> [...]
>
> The same is true for the version number which has to contain
> -incubating. This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers to
> those questions, I would not release.
>
>
> I don't see why the first release has to be perfect right away
>
> The sooner we go out of incubation the better :)
While that is true, I don't expect us out of incubation within 3 months,
because of community building. And by then we can have another release
anyway.
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
> [...]
>
>> The same is true for the version number which has to contain
>> -incubating. This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers to
>> those questions, I would not release.
>>
>
> I don't see why the first release has to be perfect right away
>
> The sooner we go out of incubation the better :)
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 01.05.2015 11:29, schrieb Cédric Champeau:
> I agree that we would have probably released 2.4.4 already if we didn't
> have to adapt the release process. There are a few steps that need to be
> done:
>
> - update NOTICE.txt to include the licenses of the libraries we embed
> - adapt the release process to have a staging phase. We need to work
> with the JFrog guys for this
we can do a release by hand if we absolutely want to.
> There's also the unanswered question of the groupId/artifactId. So far
> we use org.codehaus.groovy, and it's so widely used that I am worried if
> we change it to org.apache.groovy. There are lots of libraries that draw
> org.codehaus.groovy, so if we change it there will undoubtedly be a lot
> of dependency conflicts to resolve, which for our users will be a PITA.
For 2.4 such a change is out of scope, even if that means that those
releases are "inofficial"
[...]
> The same is true for the version number which has to contain
> -incubating. This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers to
> those questions, I would not release.
I don't see why the first release has to be perfect right away
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> Am 01.05.2015 14:57, schrieb Andrew Bayer:
>>
>> So far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the groupId be
>> changed. But the version does have to include "incubating".
>
>
> for the official source release, yes. Doesn't have to be (must not imho) for
> maven artifacts
Yes
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 01.05.2015 14:57, schrieb Andrew Bayer:
> So far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the groupId be
> changed. But the version does have to include "incubating".
for the official source release, yes. Doesn't have to be (must not imho)
for maven artifacts
bye blackdrag
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
So far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the groupId be changed.
But the version does have to include "incubating".
A.
On Friday, May 1, 2015, Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that we would have probably released 2.4.4 already if we didn't
> have to adapt the release process. There are a few steps that need to be
> done:
>
> - update NOTICE.txt to include the licenses of the libraries we embed
> - adapt the release process to have a staging phase. We need to work with
> the JFrog guys for this
>
> There's also the unanswered question of the groupId/artifactId. So far we
> use org.codehaus.groovy, and it's so widely used that I am worried if we
> change it to org.apache.groovy. There are lots of libraries that draw
> org.codehaus.groovy, so if we change it there will undoubtedly be a lot of
> dependency conflicts to resolve, which for our users will be a PITA. The
> question is, is it mandatory to change the groupId to be a TLP? If so, then
> we know we'll have a painful transition phase. If not, then we're good.
>
> The same is true for the version number which has to contain -incubating.
> This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers to those questions, I
> would not release.
>
>
> 2015-05-01 11:02 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','glaforge@gmail.com');>>:
>
>> It's indeed quite worthy making a new release, but our release process is
>> not quite ready yet.
>> It's not (yet) as simple as what it used to be, and we need to adapt.
>>
>> 2015-05-01 9:20 GMT+02:00 Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumacher@gmx.net
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pascalschumacher@gmx.net');>>:
>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>>
>>> what about a release of Groovy 2.4.4?
>>>
>>> Sure only a handful of bugs were fixed:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY/fixforversion/12331941/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-issues-panel
>>>
>>> but there have been significant additions to the documentation:
>>>
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_interacting_with_a_sql_database
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_the_groovy_ant_task
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_filetreebuilder
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_staxbuilder
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_saxbuilder
>>> -
>>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_nodebuilder
>>> - All links to the old groovy repository changed to the apache
>>> github mirror.
>>> - A lot of corrections across the board.
>>>
>>> -Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Guillaume Laforge
>> Groovy Project Manager
>> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>>
>> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
>> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>>
>
>
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
I agree that we would have probably released 2.4.4 already if we didn't
have to adapt the release process. There are a few steps that need to be
done:
- update NOTICE.txt to include the licenses of the libraries we embed
- adapt the release process to have a staging phase. We need to work with
the JFrog guys for this
There's also the unanswered question of the groupId/artifactId. So far we
use org.codehaus.groovy, and it's so widely used that I am worried if we
change it to org.apache.groovy. There are lots of libraries that draw
org.codehaus.groovy, so if we change it there will undoubtedly be a lot of
dependency conflicts to resolve, which for our users will be a PITA. The
question is, is it mandatory to change the groupId to be a TLP? If so, then
we know we'll have a painful transition phase. If not, then we're good.
The same is true for the version number which has to contain -incubating.
This is still unanswered. Until we have the answers to those questions, I
would not release.
2015-05-01 11:02 GMT+02:00 Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>:
> It's indeed quite worthy making a new release, but our release process is
> not quite ready yet.
> It's not (yet) as simple as what it used to be, and we need to adapt.
>
> 2015-05-01 9:20 GMT+02:00 Pascal Schumacher <pa...@gmx.net>:
>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> what about a release of Groovy 2.4.4?
>>
>> Sure only a handful of bugs were fixed:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY/fixforversion/12331941/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-issues-panel
>>
>> but there have been significant additions to the documentation:
>>
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_interacting_with_a_sql_database
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_the_groovy_ant_task
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_filetreebuilder
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_staxbuilder
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_saxbuilder
>> -
>> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_nodebuilder
>> - All links to the old groovy repository changed to the apache github
>> mirror.
>> - A lot of corrections across the board.
>>
>> -Pascal
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Groovy Project Manager
> Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
> <https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>
>
Re: Release Groovy 2.4.4?
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
It's indeed quite worthy making a new release, but our release process is
not quite ready yet.
It's not (yet) as simple as what it used to be, and we need to adapt.
2015-05-01 9:20 GMT+02:00 Pascal Schumacher <pa...@gmx.net>:
> Hello everybody,
>
> what about a release of Groovy 2.4.4?
>
> Sure only a handful of bugs were fixed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY/fixforversion/12331941/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-issues-panel
>
> but there have been significant additions to the documentation:
>
> -
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_interacting_with_a_sql_database
> -
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_the_groovy_ant_task
> -
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_filetreebuilder
> -
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_staxbuilder
> - http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_saxbuilder
> -
> http://docs.groovy-lang.org/docs/next/html/documentation/#_nodebuilder
> - All links to the old groovy repository changed to the apache github
> mirror.
> - A lot of corrections across the board.
>
> -Pascal
>
>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/114130972232398734985/posts>