Yes was just going to ask about that. Our website says GPars 1.3.0 is next
as a SNAPSHOT pending a repository provider other than codehaus
As i am working in that part of our documentation, it would be very easy to
include stuff about 1.3.0-RC even if i just have placeholders in the
material p
1. Have done another doc upload. Spent time getting all the *.jar and
*.zip files from gpars.org to include here:
http://gparsdocs.de.a9sapp.eu/Download.html
Did not do the RCs as limited disk space on CloudFoundry target.
2. i need to see what changes you want to make here:
http://gparsdocs.d
Russel was looking into 1.3.0 snapshot but we need a host so we keep
our GPars snapshot fore testing before it gets out the door. Schalk was
looking@something like this a yr ago , think it was artifactory or
bintray? Trying to nail this down now.
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016, Guillaume Laforge w
Was reviewing our roadmap@ http://gparsdocs.de.a9sapp.eu/Roadmap.html
showing GPars 1.3.0 and 1.4.0 so if you think a point release@ 1.3.0 would
be a good idea, am happy to update docs to reflect your decision. You will
just need to let me know which URL to use to point our docs at, repo-wise.
Do we have an up-to-date guidebook on how to contribute to Apache Groovy or
is the process unclear ?
thx
On 16 January 2016 at 06:06, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> I've moved forward and removed all component leads, and set back the
> default assignment to the "default project assignment" which is.
GR8 idea Paul. Would you have any thoughts for the GPars roadmap, pls.? See
this: http://gparsdocs.de.a9sapp.eu/Roadmap.html - ideas welcome đ
Sent from my iPad
> On 20 Jan 2016, at 13:49, Paul King wrote:
>
> I think it would be good to have some kind of minimal roadmap in the
> new document
LOL! Well apologies for the problem but when i wrote this doc. a few yrs ago, i
did not put it into the correct repo as i did not know where. Much of the
content i developed used ideas and observations about how Groovy got off the
ground, it's structure and who was involved.
I only just realize
could anyone pls point me to where i can donate a tiny piece of
String.metadata function ?
thx
On 15 February 2016 at 22:12, Pascal Schumacher
wrote:
> Hi CĂ©dric,
>
> great news. :)
>
> I think before https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7742 should
> be resolved, by either applying http
Hi Pascal
could you pls point me to where i can donate a tiny piece of
String.metadata function ?
thx
âjim
â
On 16 February 2016 at 08:12, Pascal Schumacher
wrote:
> I fixed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7742 by reverting as
> Shils and John suggested in the discussion of
> https
send us a
> pull request.
>
> Cheers,
> Pascal
>
> Am 16.02.2016 um 10:18 schrieb jim northrop:
>
> Hi Pascal
> could you pls point me to where i can donate a tiny piece of
> String.metadata function ?
>
> thx
> âjim
> â
>
> On 16 February 2016 at
macher <
> pascalschumac...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> not sure what you mean by "String.metadata function"?
>>
>> If you like to contribute code to groovy open a jira ticket and send us a
>> pull request.
>>
>> Cheers,
&g
was thinking of the same problem with our http://gpars.website. Do we
include code samples or not ? or only links to external sites ? i like the
idea of "live" code fragments within the doc.s that are compiled/tested as
a part of document generation. this guarantees that code in our docs works
as
+1 đ
Sent from my iPad
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 11:11, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
> By the way, I had a question (unrelated to the below thread, but related to
> the grammar) :-)
>
> Do you keep the comment information?
> It's something we've always said we should support, and it would tremendous
Hi Andrey
As you learn, could you pls keep our community updated on how to do this as
we are in an 'apache' world now? Am guessing things have changed
submission-wise.
thx jim
On 22 March 2016 at 06:11, Andrey Atapin wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Iâve just logged an issue of Groovy SQL (
> https://issu
Just did 2 DNS name changes this afternoon using goDaddy and worked flawlessly
with no changed required to my internal server. So i'm a bit puzzled why this
should be a biggie đł
Sent from my iPad
> On 22 May 2016, at 20:20, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
> And... it's back now!
>
> Sorry again f
Would love to see a mirror groovy doc.s site like say, groovy-lang.net so if
one is down we have a spare. Doc.s publish would push to two targets but quite
do-able.
Sent from my iPad
> On 22 May 2016, at 20:36, Mario Garcia wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation Guillaume.
>
> Just a quick qu
what does this mean to the avg hacker ? do we need to fix our kit anyway ?
On 4 June 2016 at 10:50, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 16:20 -0700, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > +1 [binding]
> >
> > signature is ok
> > sha1 is ok
> > rat is ok
> > builds and produces functional binarie
Merci Cedric-
Was fighting this problem only yesterday, so your tip will save me beaucoup
work. -
Jim
On 28 October 2016 at 09:03, CĂ©dric Champeau
wrote:
> Yes, the shadow plugin is also one of the most used Gradle plugins out
> there. It's rock solid :)
>
> 2016-10-28 0:12 GMT+02:00 Guillaume L
hence why UK gov.want to hire 3,500 cyber-warriors ? ;-}
On 19 December 2016 at 07:38, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2016-12-18 at 23:39 +0100, CĂ©dric Champeau wrote:
> > This looks to be related to the recent changes by Paul for the new
> > release
> > process. Probably an overlook.
>
> I sus
Will we be needing any doco changes for GPars 2.0 Russel ?
On 19 December 2016 at 07:34, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 09:34 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 09:26 +0100, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> > > You always forget to give me precise details! đ
> > > JDK
Russel is working on GPars v2.0 so have asked him if this proposed change
is do-able.
On 7 January 2017 at 18:28, Andres Almiray wrote:
> This is a slippery slope IMHO.
>
> Adding custom syntax support in core for GPars might sound like a good
> idea given the fact that GPars is bundled with cor
a nice idea ;-D
On 7 January 2017 at 18:30, Jesper Steen MĂžller
wrote:
> But
>
> Wouldnât << be a natural choice which would work today?
>
> -Jesper
>
> > On 7 Jan 2017, at 18.16, Daniel Sun wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As we all know, GPars is awesome in concurrency programming. How
>
Have found this Actor slideshow that may help us a bit ?
http://www.slideshare.net/drorbr/the-actor-model-towards-better-concurrency
On 7 January 2017 at 18:30, Jesper Steen MĂžller
wrote:
> But
>
> Wouldnât << be a natural choice which would work today?
>
> -Jesper
>
> > On 7 Jan 2017, at 18.16
Deep apologies for including this here, but when we look into the realms of
parallel and concurrent processing, The Lawrence Livermore Institute has
given us a super review of this topic here:
https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/ and gives us more
food-for-thought as we implement sy
Ok, so basically, we let sleeping dogs lie. â
âșïž
Sent from my iPad
> On 9 Jan 2017, at 10:59, CĂ©dric Champeau wrote:
>
> I see no good reason to remove any published artifact from a public
> repository. This would cause more troubles than benefits (I look at you,
> npm!).
>
> 2017-01-09 10:58
Do we have an ETA date when we can chg our gradle configs to pull 2.4.8 please?
Sent from my iPad
> On 10 Jan 2017, at 14:06, Paul King wrote:
>
> [Hopefully for real this time]
>
> Dear community,
>
> I am happy to start the VOTE thread for a Groovy 2.4.8 release!
>
> This release includes
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Jim Northrop
> wrote:
>> Do we have an ETA date when we can chg our gradle configs to pull 2.4.8
>> please?
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2017, at 14:06, Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>>
Russel is looking to build GPars V2.0 as JDK8+ later this year, so timing for
Groovy 3 would be nice.
Sent from my iPad
> On 25 Jan 2017, at 16:43, CĂ©dric Champeau wrote:
>
> That's only ok once we generate Java 8+ class files only. Otherwise, you
> create a language that, syntactically, sup
So would dev.s need to add this annotation on EVERY method and property? Or
only a single point in our groovy source?
Thx
Sent from my iPad
> On 24 Feb 2017, at 07:18, Guillaume Laforge wrote:
>
> Instead of a compilation flag... what about a special GroovyDoc annotation?
>
> /** Foo Bar Baz
Just thinking, has any thought been given to changing our package name from
org.codehaus.groovy to org.apache.groovy ? Would imagine this is a deal-breaker
for backward compatibility, but maybe groovy 3.0 ?
Sent from my iPad
> On 4 Mar 2017, at 06:38, Paul King wrote:
>
> You are correct in o
Ok, fine. Let me know if u need any help 4 that one đ
Sent from my iPad
> On 4 Mar 2017, at 07:54, Paul King wrote:
>
> That has been the thinking Jim. Not before 3.0.
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 4:47 PM, jim northrop
>> wrote:
>> Just thinking, has a
if you need more recent gpars documentation, i'm working on v2.0 of it that
you can see here: http://gpars.aws.ie.a9sapp.eu
the download page does show gpars 2.0 but it's just copies of 1.2.1 that
i've renamed as placeholders.
since jsr-166Y may be dropped there are a number of gpars features that
we try to keep GPars docs separate from GPars codebase and/or have the docs
as separate downloadable if/when ppl want them.
On 18 March 2017 at 13:21, CĂ©dric Champeau
wrote:
> Actually I missed that. I don't think we should ship the docs with the
> distribution. Or, remove the docs zip altogeth
Welcome aboard John! đ
Sent from my iPad
> On 2 Apr 2017, at 11:11, Daniel Sun wrote:
>
> Congratulations to John :)
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.Sun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Welcome-John-Wagenleitner-to-the-Groovy-PMC-tp5739577p5739582.html
>
+1 for Daniel & Paul's idea
sometimes my few spare hours can be devoted to improving Groovy to
everyone's benefit but we need an easier way to identify low-hanging fruit
*;-)*
thx
jim
On 3 May 2017 at 02:23, Daniel Sun wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Apache Groovy really needs more help from communit
Good morning Cedric
Wanted to ask if the removal of the jdk9 version of groovy-all jar will also
mean that all us stuck on jdk1.7 will not have newer versions of groovy
features? It would seem i would need to revise my gradles to include needed
dependencies that groovy-all used to have but not n
Thanks to you for this -
Does this mean that GPars will no longer work on JDK1.7 ? What is the minimum
jdk that we require for GPars, please ?
Thx
Jim
> On 6 Mar 2018, at 18:04, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:43 +, Kerridge, Jon wrote:
>> Hi,
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>> I am hav
37 matches
Mail list logo
