Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Cédric Champeau
Hi folks,

I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We have a long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master. Given the number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us down, and we need to move forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.

WDYT?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

mauromol
Il 11/03/2018 15:12, Cédric Champeau ha scritto:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We
> have a long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master.
> Given the number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us
> down, and we need to move forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only
> maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
>
> WDYT?
>
Isn't 2.5 still beta? Do you think to stop supporting any stable release?

--

Mauro Molinari
E-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Cédric Champeau
I do. It's long overdue that 2.5 should be out. By working on 4 (!) different branches, we just can't manage to publish 2.5, this is a shame.

2018-03-11 15:23 GMT+01:00 Mauro Molinari <[hidden email]>:
Il 11/03/2018 15:12, Cédric Champeau ha scritto:
Hi folks,

I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We have a long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master. Given the number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us down, and we need to move forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.

WDYT?

Isn't 2.5 still beta? Do you think to stop supporting any stable release?

--

Mauro Molinari
E-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Daniel.Sun
In reply to this post by Cédric Champeau
Hi Cédric,

     Before 2.5.0 GA is out, we have to maintain 2.4.x IMO.

     According to the original plan, 2.5.x will be a short life release, we
will focus on 2.6.x and 3.0.x soon.

Cheers,
Daniel.Sun




--
Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html
Daniel Sun
Apache Groovy committer

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

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Russel Winder-3
In reply to this post by Cédric Champeau
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:12 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I'm wondering if it's reasonable to continue maintaining 2.4.x. We
> have a
> long standing 2.5 release waiting, as well as 2.6 and master. Given
> the
> number of maintainers we have, I feel it's just slowing us down, and
> we
> need to move forward. Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2
> branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.
>
> WDYT?
Where does 2.6.x git into this?

But yes having fewer maintained versions makes sense not just because
it saves developer hassle, but it makes things clearer for users, to
many of whom seem to think running ancient versions of things in the
face of having better, newer, versions is acceptable.

--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

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

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Russel Winder-3
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:24 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
> […]
>
> Where does 2.6.x git into this?
>
[…]

s/git/fit/


>
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

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

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

paulk_asert
In reply to this post by Cédric Champeau


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:12 AM, Cédric Champeau <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...] Honestly I'd be in favor of only maintaining 2 branches: 2.5.x and 3.0.x.

I am hoping that's where we are by the end of the year.

Cheers, Paul.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

paulk_asert
In reply to this post by Russel Winder-3

2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't backport easily without a JVM8).
Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is where our focus should be ... soon.
2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck on JDK7. Given it has limitations
anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release - unless other community
members contributed the PRs to advance it.

Cheers, Paul.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Russel Winder <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 2018-03-11 at 15:24 +0000, Russel Winder wrote:
> […]
>
> Where does 2.6.x fit into this?
>
[…]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Russel Winder-3
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 12:23 +1000, Paul King wrote:

> 2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't
> backport easily without a JVM8).
> Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is
> where
> our focus should be ... soon.
> 2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck
> on
> JDK7. Given it has limitations
> anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release
> -
> unless other community
> members contributed the PRs to advance it.
>
Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0-
jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is?

> >
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

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

Re: Stop maintaining 2.4.x?

Wilson MacGyver
Calling it 3.0.0-jdk7 would reduce confusion and increase 3.0 adaption 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:04 PM Russel Winder <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 12:23 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> 2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't
> backport easily without a JVM8).
> Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is
> where
> our focus should be ... soon.
> 2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck
> on
> JDK7. Given it has limitations
> anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release
> -
> unless other community
> members contributed the PRs to advance it.
>

Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0-
jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is?

> >
--
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk
12