Sorry if outsiders are not meant to chime in :) Why not - 2.5 as Cédric proposed (so Java 7 + macros) - 3.0 with Java 8 and Parrot - 4.0 with Java 9 and Jigsaw?
This way Groovy versions and Java versions are nicely aligned. To let people try Parrot early, there could be a 3.0 early access release that only replaces the antlr2-based parser with Parrot and bumps the required Java version to 8. On 31 January 2017 at 10:55, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champ...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2017-01-31 10:46 GMT+01:00 Jochen Theodorou <blackd...@gmx.org>: > >> >> >> On 31.01.2017 09:37, Cédric Champeau wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> There are multiple conversations going on for weeks, and I think they >>> are going nowhere. We could discuss for months what's the best plan for >>> Groovy, without releasing anything. Here are the challenges that are >>> waiting for us: >>> >>> 1. release a version of Groovy that integrates Groovy macros >>> 2. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.7, which is >>> required to smoothly transition to higher requirements (and also, make >>> our devs lives easier) >>> 3. upgrade the minimal runtime required for Groovy to 1.8, allowing us >>> to drop the old call site caching and use indy Groovy everywhere >>> 4. integrate Parrot, which replaces the use of Antlr2 with Antlr4 >>> 5. compatibility with Jigsaw, aka "Groovy as a module" >>> >> > >> >>> I would like to propose the following plan: >>> >>> - Groovy 2.5: integrates 1 and 2, to be released ASAP, we've been >>> waiting for this for too long >>> - Groovy 2.6: integrate 4, implying backporting Parrot to Java 7 >>> - Groovy 3.0: integrate 3 and 5. The only version with necessary >>> breaking changes (we have no choice here) >>> >> >> If you insist on a removal of antlr2, then this will be a breaking >> change, since we leak antlr2 classes in several places. 2.6 is then only an >> option if antlr2 stays. And considering your earlier statements that there >> should be only one parser, that means 2.6 has to be 3.0. >> >> And considering that there is now a Java7 version of Parrot and that >> there will be at least two major versions before we are on JDK8... why not >> just go with 3.0 right away? >> > > Because macro groovy doesn't have to be bound with breaking changes. > > >> >> So my -1 based on your argumentation from my side. An alternative plan: >> >> no 2.5 >> - 3.0 with macro methods and Java7 and parrot >> - 4.0 java8 and jigsaw >> >> bye Jochen >> > >
