I don't think calling it 3.0-jdk7 is a good thing to do: the runtime would be different, with different bugs. Plus, it would add confusion on some build tools, with random dependencies on jdk7, or indy, or ...
I think we should focus on getting 2.5 out, and then go with 3.0 asap. 2018-03-12 17:58 GMT+01:00 Wilson MacGyver <wmacgy...@gmail.com>: > Calling it 3.0.0-jdk7 would reduce confusion and increase 3.0 adaption > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 12:04 PM Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 12:23 +1000, Paul King wrote: >> > 2.6 is just 3.0 backported to JDK7 (minus those features which don't >> > backport easily without a JVM8). >> > Most users should be skipping 2.6 and going straight to 3.0 which is >> > where >> > our focus should be ... soon. >> > 2.6 is meant to help people start moving towards Parrot who are stuck >> > on >> > JDK7. Given it has limitations >> > anyway, I wouldn't imagine we'd do anything more than a 2.6.0 release >> > - >> > unless other community >> > members contributed the PRs to advance it. >> > >> >> Sounds like it isn't a 2.6.0 at all then. Should it be called 3.0.0- >> jdk7 so as to reflect what it actually is? >> >> > > >> -- >> Russel. >> =========================================== >> Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 <+44%2020%207585%202200> >> 41 Buckmaster Road >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=41+Buckmaster+Road&entry=gmail&source=g> >> m: +44 7770 465 077 <+44%207770%20465077> >> London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk >> >
