Sounds good but I'd wait until the two known issues with 2.4.13 are fixed, otherwise you'll need to release note those problems as known issues. I'm working on one now and plan to look at the other next.
> Sounds good but I'd wait until the two known issues with 2.4.13 are fixed,
> otherwise you'll need to release note those problems as known issues. I'm
> working on one now and plan to look at the other next.
> Cheers, Paul.
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Daniel.Sun <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Paul,
> > Apart from 2.6.0-alpha-2, I plan to release 3.0.0-alpha-1 :-)
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel.Sun
> > --
> > Sent from: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Groovy-Dev-f372993.html > >
Nor a 2.5! :-) My focus right now is progressing 2.5 out the door but that will happen after G3 Summit. I have some final variable analysis tweaks ready to add which should make 2.5 close to feature complete but there are some Spock hacks that need further testing. (Spock doesn't currently set the accessed variable when transforming local variable definitions and that breaks FVA and possibly other typing checks). We possibly need to have better recommended conventions around generated code in xforms. We currently do FVA checking and possibly type checking on internal Spock local variables for instance, e.g. $spock_errorCollector. We could skip synthetic or @Generated variables (or ones with internal looking names - but that can be problematic) for instance.
I am +0 on a 3 alpha. I think we have quite a few things to work through before any 2.6/3 candidate will be close to final but if people want to play with an early alpha I see no harm.
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Cédric Champeau <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not sure it makes sense to release a 3.0.0 alpha when we don't even have a 2.6 out.