[DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

paulk_asert

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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Remko Popma
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 <[hidden email]> 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.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

paulk_asert
The release notes (not really the "vision") are here:
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Russel Winder-3
In reply to this post by paulk_asert
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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Daniel.Sun
In reply to this post by paulk_asert
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
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer

Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Remko Popma
+1
Makes sense.

Remko

> On May 20, 2018, at 19:35, Daniel.Sun <[hidden email]> 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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Daniel.Sun
In reply to this post by Russel Winder-3
> 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
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer

Blog: http://blog.sunlan.me
Twitter: @daniel_sun
MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

MG
In reply to this post by Russel Winder-3
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 <[hidden email]>
Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00)
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

Andres Almiray
In reply to this post by paulk_asert
I’d suggest to keep it simple, go with 2.9.0. 

Sent from my primitive Tricorder

On 20 May 2018, at 21:50, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <[hidden email]>
Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00)
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
MG
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

MG
2.9.0 could make people ask themselves where 2.6/2.7/2.8 went, whereas 2.97 is so far from 2.5, that I think people would get that it means more "3.0 minus small, but (significant) delta" (i.e. not just an epsilon, as with 2.99, which Russel suggested). Plus the "7" has a mnemonic quality, making it easier for everyone to remember what the main point of this release was...

(2.9 would be much better than 2.6, though...)


-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Andres Almiray <[hidden email]>
Datum: 20.05.18 15:11 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

I’d suggest to keep it simple, go with 2.9.0. 

Sent from my primitive Tricorder

On 20 May 2018, at 21:50, mg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <[hidden email]>
Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00)
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
123