I’d suggest to keep it simple, go with 2.9.0. Sent from my primitive Tricorder
> On 20 May 2018, at 21:50, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> wrote: > > What about 2.97 ? Incorporates a JDK 7 reference, and is not too close to 3.0 > (Bugfixes could go into 2.97.1 etc..., so the "7" could be kept). > > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- > Von: Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> > Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00) > An: pa...@asert.com.au, dev@groovy.apache.org > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 > > On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 13:58 +1000, Paul King wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9. > > It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small > > step up > > from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3. > > > > If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your > face"? > > -- > Russel. > ========================================== > 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
