Hi folks, We never really resolved a clear direction for our on-going plans in terms of when to bump our minimum version. There was a poll on twitter back when this discussion started:
https://twitter.com/ApacheGroovy/status/1524255310923595776 That shows a keen interest in bumping up our minimum version but still a reasonable percentage of folks wanting the status quo. The two obvious choices are: (1) Stick with JDK8 for Groovy 5 and bump for Groovy 6 - the implications being we defer numerous activities that depend on the bump or branch off Groovy 6 earlier rather than later. The downside in having many branches is that it increases our load when cherry-picking/porting fixes across branches. (2) Lock in JDK11 for Groovy 5 (we spoke of potentially jumping to JDK17 if a compelling reason pushed us in that direction - but so far there hasn't been such a reason, so I am suggesting we defer that part of the decision for now). This means that bigger changes for JDK8 might cause 4.1, 4.2, 4.x branches in the future. I'd like to suggest a variant of (2). We start off by bumping master to JDK11. If, before we release Groovy 5, we do end up with a bigger change appearing that might be nice to push back to JDK8, we reserve the right to bump the version in master to 6 and backport such a change onto a newly created 5_0_X branch. Thoughts? Cheers, Paul. On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:44 AM Remi Forax <fo...@univ-mlv.fr> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)" <eric.mil...@thomsonreuters.com> > > To: "dev" <dev@groovy.apache.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:59:52 PM > > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning > > > I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods > > (GROOVY-8299, GROOVY-9801, GROOVY-10000) for Groovy 5. There was > > discussion on > > what was needed for this at one point. Does anyone remember if Java 8 was > > holding us back in this area? > > It does not, Java the language only adds interface private methods in Java 9 > but the VM already supports them since 8. > > As a trivia, the support in the VM was added in 8 to be able to desugar the > body of a lambda as a private method (static or not) when a lambda is used > inside a default method. > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-8299 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-9801 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-10000 > > regards, > Rémi > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Sun <sun...@apache.org> > > Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2022 1:21 PM > > To: dev@groovy.apache.org > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning > > > > External Email: Use caution with links and attachments. > > > > Hi Jochen, > > > > I agree with you. The manpower is always a big problem... > > > > As for the Groovy 5 itself, I wonder what features we should add to the > > release. > > I think following Java's steps is right, but Groovy should have its own > > evolving plan. Also, I think polishing Groovy 4 is important too, e.g. > > fixing > > issues and improving performance. > > > > Cheers, > > Daniel Sun > > On 2022/06/26 21:55:33 Jochen Theodorou wrote: > >> On 26.06.22 19:39, Daniel Sun wrote: > >> > AFAIK, quite a lot of Groovy users are still using Java 8 because their > >> > company > >> > have no plan to upgrade systems to run on Java 9+. It is especially > >> > common for > >> > bank systems I have been working on for years, so it's better to continue > >> > supporting Java 8 in Groovy 5 releases. > >> > >> When is it likely for them to change? If we go by the Oracle extended > >> support it would mean to have Java8 in till 2030. > >> > >> if we had the manpower I would suggest making a java8 version of > >> Groovy 5. But I think that is not realistic. It will be difficult to > >> support deprecated/removed API. I mean it is a bit more than in the > >> past where it was about backporting features to older Java versions or > >> enabling language only features on older Java versions. The > >> alternative would then be to not to support that feature anymore... > >> like for example the SecurityManager. But would such a Groovy-Version > >> still be useful in its current usage? > >> > >> > >> bye Jochen
