I will let the PMC decide on the exact numbering and what goes where. However;
+1 on getting Macros and Parrot out the door and available in a 2.x compatible version as soon as possible. > On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Jesper Steen Møller <jes...@selskabet.org> wrote: > > Well, I didn't see many actually object to the contents or order that you > suggested, but primarily the numbering. I'll give it another go. > > The vote thread seemed to raise three issues: > 1) Whether or not to provide the parrot parser as a standalone option ASAP > (this is actually quite a bit of work) > 2) How to best design the semantics of lambda expressions in Groovy > 3) How to deal with Groovy in JDK9 with or without breaking changes (i.e. > still support Groovy 2.x in JDK9 WITHOUT Jigsaw, but only Groovy 3.x WITH > Jigsaw, because of indy and new package names, which both break old > classfiles and perhaps source). > > If we're very pedantic about semantic versions, we'll have to bump major > numbers each time we raise the minimum runtime requirement. But - what if > we're less pedantic? We could restate our semantic versioning interpretation > to be that the 2.x line will be source code compatible with previous 2.x > Groovy sources, but with higher JVM runtime environment requirements. > I.e. you can still run your old Groovy-compiled classfiles with Groovy 2.x. > So they're compatible, you just need a newer runtime... > As for Parrot: It has been backported to 1.7, and while it would require > testing, I can't see the reason for marking it a breaking change. > > I think we should raise these three discussion points as separate threads, > and restart the vote, but with two flavours: > > YES-1: > - Groovy 2.5: integrates macros and requires Java 7, to be released ASAP, > we've been waiting for this for too long > - Groovy 2.6: integrate Parrot, implying backporting Parrot to Java 7 > - Groovy 3.0: integrate Jigsaw and drop old callsite caching + use indy. The > only version with necessary breaking changes (we have no choice here) > > YES-2: > - Groovy 3.0: integrates macros and requires Java 7, to be released ASAP, > we've been waiting for this for too long > - Groovy 3.1: integrate Parrot, implying backporting Parrot to Java 7 > - Groovy 4.0: integrate Jigsaw and drop old callsite caching + use indy. The > only version with necessary breaking changes (we have no choice here) > > So what will it be: > > - [ ] YES-1, I approve the roadmap with the pragmatic stance to > compatibility > - [ ] YES-2, I approve the roadmap above with the stricter stance towards > compatibility > - [ ] NO, I do not approve the roadmap abobe beause... > - [ ] I don't mind, or this goes beyond what I can think of > > In the end, it's for the PMC to decide. > > -Jesper > > >> On 7 Feb 2017, at 14.15, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com >> <mailto:cedric.champ...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> The result is that the vote turned into a debate again. I give up :) >> >> 2017-02-07 4:18 GMT+01:00 Daniel Sun <realblue...@hotmail.com >> <mailto:realblue...@hotmail.com>>: >> Hi Cédric, >> >> 72h has gone. The result is ? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel.Sun >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Groovy-Roadmap-tp5738250p5738451.html >> >> <http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/VOTE-Apache-Groovy-Roadmap-tp5738250p5738451.html> >> Sent from the Groovy Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com >> <http://nabble.com/>. >> >
