You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@groovy.apache.org by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> on 2018/05/20 03:58:26 UTC
[DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Hi,
I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small
step up
from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
Thoughts?
Cheers, Paul.
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by "Daniel.Sun" <su...@apache.org>.
> If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your
face"?
2.9, i.e. your proposed 2.99 could not be bug free.
When we need to release a bug fixing version, what version number should we
use? 2.991? ;-)
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by mg <mg...@arscreat.com>.
What about 2.97 ? Incorporates a JDK 7 reference, and is not too close to 3.0 (Bugfixes could go into 2.97.1 etc..., so the "7" could be kept).
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk> Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00) An: paulk@asert.com.au, dev@groovy.apache.org Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 13:58 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small
> step up
> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>
If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your
face"?
--
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] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Russel Winder <ru...@winder.org.uk>.
On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 13:58 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small
> step up
> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>
If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your
face"?
--
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] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
+1
Makes sense.
Remko
> On May 20, 2018, at 19:35, Daniel.Sun <su...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> +1
> As the main version before 3.0.0 is 2.6 currently, I think renumbering
> 2.6 to 2.9 can reflect the changes in 2.6 better.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by "Daniel.Sun" <su...@apache.org>.
Hi Paul,
+1
As the main version before 3.0.0 is 2.6 currently, I think renumbering
2.6 to 2.9 can reflect the changes in 2.6 better.
Cheers,
Daniel.Sun
--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Keegan Witt <ke...@gmail.com>.
I don't have strong feelings on it, but I think I'd lean against it since
we've already released artifacts under the 2.6 banner.
1. It can be confusing when looking in somewhere like Maven Central that
the already released 2.6 artifacts are in the same line as 2.9 (one might
conclude without reading this thread that the 2.6 line was abandoned).
2. If can affect other tooling that's already supporting 2.6, such as
docker-groovy <https://hub.docker.com/_/groovy/>. If I'm using 2.6-jdk8
as a base for my images, I'll have to change to 2.9-jdk8 to continue
getting the latest base (or I guess I'll have to keep tagging all future
2.9s also as 2.6 just in case someone was doing that).
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at
> least once or twice.
> It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care
> all that much, and usually even forget about it :-)
>
> That said, I don't have a strong opinion.
> To Russel's points, we might save us some time by just focusing on updates
> of 2.5 and 3.0, rather than the current 4 branches maintained.
> Even if 2.6(9) and 3.0 are close, it's not critical if the numbers are
> close too.
> So I'd tend to not even bother with renumbering at all.
> But frankly, I don't mind :-)
>
> Guillaume
>
>
> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM, John Wagenleitner <
> john.wagenleitner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
>> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> versions.
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>>> small step up
>>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>>>
>
>
> --
> Guillaume Laforge
> Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
> Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform
>
> Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
> Twitter: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 21.05.2018 17:32, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at
> least once or twice.
> It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care
> all that much, and usually even forget about it :-)
not long ago I have been asked what happened to Groovy 1.9 ;)
> That said, I don't have a strong opinion.
> To Russel's points, we might save us some time by just focusing on
> updates of 2.5 and 3.0, rather than the current 4 branches maintained.
> Even if 2.6(9) and 3.0 are close, it's not critical if the numbers are
> close too.
> So I'd tend to not even bother with renumbering at all.
> But frankly, I don't mind :-)
I think it is better to keep 2.6
bye Jochen
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Guillaume Laforge <gl...@gmail.com>.
In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at
least once or twice.
It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care
all that much, and usually even forget about it :-)
That said, I don't have a strong opinion.
To Russel's points, we might save us some time by just focusing on updates
of 2.5 and 3.0, rather than the current 4 branches maintained.
Even if 2.6(9) and 3.0 are close, it's not critical if the numbers are
close too.
So I'd tend to not even bother with renumbering at all.
But frankly, I don't mind :-)
Guillaume
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM, John Wagenleitner <
john.wagenleitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
> versions.
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>> small step up
>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>>
--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform
Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Twitter: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by "Milles, Eric (TR Technology & Ops)" <er...@thomsonreuters.com>.
I'm not sure if this has been stated as I have not had a chance to read this thread in the last couple days, but here's my 2 cents:
I would stick with 2.6 as it has already been setup for builds, discussed in conferences and can be seen on the groovy-lang downloads page w/ release notes. I find that 2.6 follows semantic versioning just fine and should there be any need, 2.7 could be created (but probably won't).
If you main thrust is 3.0, then try to push 2.6 out as soon after 2.5 is GA as can be achieved. I find value in 2.6 as it gives a chance to step into Parrot but not JDK8 or breaking changes.
________________________________
From: Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 3:25 AM
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Re "what's the rationale of supporting Java 7". The whole idea originally was listening to our users.
They wanted the Parrot parser but were stuck on JDK7 at the time. They supplied the backporting code
to make it work, But having said that, a lot of time has passed. I am certainly open to the idea of
reducing our maintenance burden. I guess we should poll the user base in that case. If for no other
reason to assist in communication. I'll do that once 2.5.0 is GA in about a week's time hopefully.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Paolo Di Tommaso <pa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> But seriously, a project release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)
I definitely agree, what's the rationale of supporting Java 7? The new Java release train is putting a lot of pressure on the fast adoption of latest Java versions. IMO it would be much better to focus on Java 9 compatibility.
p
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>> wrote:
2.99 or alike doesn't make sense. What if you have to release a bug fix release. 2.99.1? That's nasty :)
I'm very much in favor of dropping 2.6 altogether because it's confusing as possible. We don't have 2.5 yet, and we already have alphas for 3.0. This mean we would live with 3 "live" branches for a while (2.5.x, 2.6.x and 3.x), which is too much overhead for my brain, and probably too much hassle for the maintainers of Groovy. I reckon that people wanted to have the ability to try the new parser on JDK 7. But seriously, a project release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)
Le mar. 22 mai 2018 à 09:33, mg <mg...@arscreat.com>> a écrit :
Good point.
This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x or my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x
(once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e. without breaking changes).
Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which would be much more confusing...
The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect, clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>>
Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@groovy.apache.org<ma...@groovy.apache.org>, paulk@asert.com.au<ma...@asert.com.au>
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
2.9.
What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>> wrote:
> 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
> missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
> We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With semantic
> versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
> So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
> support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
> of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
> number.
>
> Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
> non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
> most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work, I
> say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
> contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
> <jo...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
>> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> versions.
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>>> small step up
>>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
Re "what's the rationale of supporting Java 7". The whole idea originally
was listening to our users.
They wanted the Parrot parser but were stuck on JDK7 at the time. They
supplied the backporting code
to make it work, But having said that, a lot of time has passed. I am
certainly open to the idea of
reducing our maintenance burden. I guess we should poll the user base in
that case. If for no other
reason to assist in communication. I'll do that once 2.5.0 is GA in about a
week's time hopefully.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Paolo Di Tommaso <paolo.ditommaso@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > But seriously, a project release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is
> extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)
>
> I definitely agree, what's the rationale of supporting Java 7? The new
> Java release train is putting a lot of pressure on the fast adoption of
> latest Java versions. IMO it would be much better to focus on Java 9
> compatibility.
>
>
> p
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Cédric Champeau <
> cedric.champeau@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2.99 or alike doesn't make sense. What if you have to release a bug fix
>> release. 2.99.1? That's nasty :)
>>
>> I'm very much in favor of dropping 2.6 altogether because it's confusing
>> as possible. We don't have 2.5 yet, and we already have alphas for 3.0.
>> This mean we would live with 3 "live" branches for a while (2.5.x, 2.6.x
>> and 3.x), which is too much overhead for my brain, and probably too much
>> hassle for the maintainers of Groovy. I reckon that people wanted to have
>> the ability to try the new parser on JDK 7. But seriously, a project
>> release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK
>> 11, not 7 :)
>>
>> Le mar. 22 mai 2018 à 09:33, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit :
>>
>>> Good point.
>>>
>>> This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x
>>> or my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x
>>> (once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
>>>
>>> Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch
>>> was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e.
>>> without breaking changes).
>>> Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which
>>> would be much more confusing...
>>>
>>> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect,
>>> clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>>> Von: Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>
>>> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00)
>>> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, paulk@asert.com.au
>>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
>>>
>>> If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
>>> continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
>>> 2.9.
>>> What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
>>> Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>> > 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
>>> > missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
>>> > We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With
>>> semantic
>>> > versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
>>> > So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
>>> > support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
>>> > of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
>>> > number.
>>> >
>>> > Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
>>> > non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
>>> > most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the
>>> work, I
>>> > say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
>>> > contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers, Paul.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
>>> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>>> >> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing
>>> to
>>> >> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or
>>> 2.8
>>> >> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>>> >> versions.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to
>>> 2.9.
>>> >>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>>> >>> small step up
>>> >>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thoughts?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Cheers, Paul.
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Paolo Di Tommaso <pa...@gmail.com>.
> But seriously, a project release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is
extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)
I definitely agree, what's the rationale of supporting Java 7? The new Java
release train is putting a lot of pressure on the fast adoption of latest
Java versions. IMO it would be much better to focus on Java 9
compatibility.
p
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM, Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2.99 or alike doesn't make sense. What if you have to release a bug fix
> release. 2.99.1? That's nasty :)
>
> I'm very much in favor of dropping 2.6 altogether because it's confusing
> as possible. We don't have 2.5 yet, and we already have alphas for 3.0.
> This mean we would live with 3 "live" branches for a while (2.5.x, 2.6.x
> and 3.x), which is too much overhead for my brain, and probably too much
> hassle for the maintainers of Groovy. I reckon that people wanted to have
> the ability to try the new parser on JDK 7. But seriously, a project
> release in 2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK
> 11, not 7 :)
>
> Le mar. 22 mai 2018 à 09:33, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit :
>
>> Good point.
>>
>> This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x or
>> my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x
>> (once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
>>
>> Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch
>> was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e.
>> without breaking changes).
>> Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which would
>> be much more confusing...
>>
>> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect,
>> clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
>>
>>
>> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
>> Von: Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>
>> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00)
>> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, paulk@asert.com.au
>> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
>>
>> If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
>> continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
>> 2.9.
>> What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
>> Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
>>
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> > 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
>> > missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
>> > We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With
>> semantic
>> > versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
>> > So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
>> > support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
>> > of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
>> > number.
>> >
>> > Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
>> > non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
>> > most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work,
>> I
>> > say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
>> > contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>> >
>> > Cheers, Paul.
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
>> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> >> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> >> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or
>> 2.8
>> >> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> >> versions.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to
>> 2.9.
>> >>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>> >>> small step up
>> >>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers, Paul.
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Cédric Champeau <ce...@gmail.com>.
2.99 or alike doesn't make sense. What if you have to release a bug fix
release. 2.99.1? That's nasty :)
I'm very much in favor of dropping 2.6 altogether because it's confusing as
possible. We don't have 2.5 yet, and we already have alphas for 3.0. This
mean we would live with 3 "live" branches for a while (2.5.x, 2.6.x and
3.x), which is too much overhead for my brain, and probably too much hassle
for the maintainers of Groovy. I reckon that people wanted to have the
ability to try the new parser on JDK 7. But seriously, a project release in
2018 that supports Java 7 is extraordinary. The future is JDK 11, not 7 :)
Le mar. 22 mai 2018 à 09:33, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit :
> Good point.
>
> This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x or
> my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x
> (once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
>
> Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch
> was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e.
> without breaking changes).
> Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which would
> be much more confusing...
>
> The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect,
> clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
>
>
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>
> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00)
> An: dev@groovy.apache.org, paulk@asert.com.au
> Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
>
> If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
> continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
> 2.9.
> What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
> Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> > 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
> > missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
> > We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With
> semantic
> > versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
> > So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
> > support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
> > of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
> > number.
> >
> > Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
> > non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
> > most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work, I
> > say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
> > contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
> >
> > Cheers, Paul.
> >
> > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
> >> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
> >> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or
> 2.8
> >> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
> >> versions.
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to
> 2.9.
> >>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
> >>> small step up
> >>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Paul.
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by mg <mg...@arscreat.com>.
Good point.
This is one reason why - under the given constraints - Russel's 2.99.x or my 2.97.x would be better choices than 2.9.x(once you get beyond "this is not how things are done").
Also consider what happens if, for some reason, the current 2.5.x branch was to continue beyond 2.5.x (without switching to 2.6.x === 3.0-- , i.e. without breaking changes).Then you would have to skip 2.6.x , and go directly to 2.7.x, which would be much more confusing...
The key sentence here is "under the given constraints". In a perfect, clean-room-world we would not be having this discussion...
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com> Datum: 22.05.18 06:31 (GMT+01:00) An: dev@groovy.apache.org, paulk@asert.com.au Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
2.9.
What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
> missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
> We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With semantic
> versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
> So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
> support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
> of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
> number.
>
> Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
> non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
> most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work, I
> say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
> contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
>> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> versions.
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>>> small step up
>>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Thibault Kruse <ti...@googlemail.com>.
If you go with 2.9 now, and for unforseeable reasons the 2.x branch
continues, you will have 2.6, 2.7, 2.8 and then the prematurely added
2.9.
What would you think about any other project versioning like that?
Even with a given explanation, it looks weird and chaotic.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> 2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
> missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
> We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With semantic
> versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
> So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
> support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
> of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
> number.
>
> Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
> non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
> most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work, I
> say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
> contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
>> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
>> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
>> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
>> versions.
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>>> small step up
>>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Paul.
>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
2.6/3.0-- has only undergone alpha releases. The fact that 2.7/2.8 are
missing and that people stop to think is a good thing.
We are planning breaking changes for 3 (and hence 2.6/3.0--). With semantic
versioning, 2.6/3.0-- should not have such changes.
So it really should be versions 3 and 4 but since we are going to drop
support for 2.6/3.0-- straight away, it hardly seems worthy
of a dedicated whole version. I think 2.9 is a good compromise version
number.
Dropping it altogether is another option but if you remember it was
non-committer contributors that wanted this change and did
most of the (original at least) contributions. We've done all the work, I
say let's just release as 2.9 and then drop it. If outside
contributors want to continue bug fixes on it, so be it.
Cheers, Paul.
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:12 AM, John Wagenleitner <
john.wagenleitner@gmail.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
> undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
> re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
> might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
> versions.
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
>> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
>> small step up
>> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by John Wagenleitner <jo...@gmail.com>.
My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already
undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to
re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8
might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those
versions.
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
> small step up
> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>.
The release notes (not really the "vision") are here:
http://groovy-lang.org/releasenotes/groovy-2.6.html
It needs a few updates.
The vision is simply Groovy 3 back-ported to JDK7 minus the bits that don't
backport easily (so explicitly no retro lambdas or anything like that).
It's just to help make life better and ease porting for anyone still stuck
on JDK7. We don't have the resources though to keep maintaining
that branch, so the idea is to get it out and then let it be maintained by
interested contributors.
So, the Parrot parser is there but not enabled by default.
Currently I think the main things we haven't tried to bring back is the
current native lambda implementation
and I think perhaps one of the new caching classes.
Cheers, Paul.
On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there a web page somewhere that explains the vision (so to speak) of
> what features will go into 3.0 and what will go in the version preceding it?
>
> Or is it roughly the same content but targeting different Java versions?
>
> Remko
>
> > On May 20, 2018, at 12:58, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> > It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a
> small step up
> > from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Cheers, Paul.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9
Posted by Remko Popma <re...@gmail.com>.
Is there a web page somewhere that explains the vision (so to speak) of what features will go into 3.0 and what will go in the version preceding it?
Or is it roughly the same content but targeting different Java versions?
Remko
> On May 20, 2018, at 12:58, Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small step up
> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>