I don't think calling it 3.0-jdk7 is a good thing to do: the runtime would be different, with different bugs. Plus, it would add confusion on some build tools, with random dependencies on jdk7, or indy, or ...
I think we should focus on getting 2.5 out, and then go with 3.0 asap.
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
> our focus should be ... soon.
> 2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck
> 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?
On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 18:02 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote:
> I don't think calling it 3.0-jdk7 is a good thing to do: the runtime
> be different, with different bugs. Plus, it would add confusion on
> build tools, with random dependencies on jdk7, or indy, or ...
> I think we should focus on getting 2.5 out, and then go with 3.0
The implication is to ignore Groovy 3.0.0 on JDK7. This sounds like A
Very Good Idea™
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