YES (not binding). This is a clear plan, and is easy to understand for the community.
It makes way for a 2.5 soon, and it also puts Parrot in a release that is not too far into the future, which IMO is important. IMO a good plan. On Tue, 31 Jan 2017 at 09:45 Cédric Champeau <cchamp...@apache.org> wrote: > YES for me too (forgot to answer :D). And yes, we should review (and > merge) your PR before beta-1. > > 2017-01-31 <20%2017%2001%2031> 9:44 GMT+01:00 Sergei Egorov < > bsid...@gmail.com>: > > YES from me. > > Would be great if we can deliver #1 as a macro method, not it form of > "MacroGroovy" (and hopefully forget this awkward name collision :D ) > > Just want to remind that there is a PR waiting for a review where I > rewrote it and implemented basic macro methods support: > https://github.com/apache/groovy/pull/472/files > > > BR, > Sergei > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:37 AM Cédric Champeau <cchamp...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Hi guys, > > There are multiple conversations going on for weeks, and I think they are > going nowhere. We could discuss for months what's the best plan for Groovy, > without releasing anything. Here are the challenges that are waiting for us: > > 1. release a version of Groovy that integrates Groovy macros > 2. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.7, which is > required to smoothly transition to higher requirements (and also, make our > devs lives easier) > 3. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.8, allowing us to > drop the old call site caching and use indy Groovy everywhere > 4. integrate Parrot, which replaces the use of Antlr2 with Antlr4 > 5. compatibility with Jigsaw, aka "Groovy as a module" > > I would like to propose the following plan: > > - Groovy 2.5: integrates 1 and 2, to be released ASAP, we've been waiting > for this for too long > - Groovy 2.6: integrate 4, implying backporting Parrot to Java 7 > - Groovy 3.0: integrate 3 and 5. The only version with necessary breaking > changes (we have no choice here) > > This plan is, I think, a good compromise for all the requirements we have: > backwards compatibility, and making progress and not having too many > branches. An alternative would be to keep Parrot on Java 8, but as some of > us have said, this is incompatible with a soonish release. The drawback is > that Parrot has the risk of being a breaking change (it is, typically if > people implicitly depend on the old parser, which would be bad), so there's > a risk of not following semantic versioning. > > - [ ] YES, I approve the roadmap above > - [ ] NO, I do not approve the roadmap abobe beause... > - [ ] I don't mind, or this goes beyond what I can think of > > This vote is open for 72h, ending 9:30am CET, on Feb 3rd, 2017. > > > -- Best regards / Med venlig hilsen, Søren Berg Glasius Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.
