On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 21:32 +0100, Guillaume Laforge wrote: > That's indeed another approach. > But that would mean two close major releases with breaking changes. > Do you > think it'd be acceptable?
Major releases are what breaking changes are for. Or did I mean that the other way around. Having voted YES in the VOTE, which seems to very quickly stop being a VOTE and turned into a debate, I would be happy with the alternate proposal (which is not an alternate fact) From Andres: - Groovy 2.5: integrates 1 and 2, to be released ASAP, we've been waiting for this for too long - Groovy 3.0: integrate 3, 4 and 5. The only version with necessary breaking changes (we have no choice here) From Jochen: no 2.5 - 3.0 with macro methods and Java7 and parrot - 4.0 java8 and jigsaw From Alessio: - 2.5 as Cédric proposed (so Java 7 + macros) - 3.0 with Java 8 and Parrot - 4.0 with Java 9 and Jigsaw? All of these work fine given they ignore the supposed new MOP of Groovy 3 :-) Remember the first number is always about breaking changes, so lets do it. Let's break stuff. Then people can put their things back together and make them better instead of just letting them rot. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
