+1 but alternatively, we could just skip 2.6 and go straight to 3.0. Le dim. 20 mai 2018 à 15:25, mg <mg...@arscreat.com> a écrit :
> 2.9.0 could make people ask themselves where 2.6/2.7/2.8 went, whereas > 2.97 is so far from 2.5, that I think people would get that it means more > "3.0 minus small, but (significant) delta" (i.e. not just an epsilon, as > with 2.99, which Russel suggested). Plus the "7" has a mnemonic quality, > making it easier for everyone to remember what the main point of this > release was... > > (2.9 would be much better than 2.6, though...) > > > -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- > Von: Andres Almiray <aalmi...@gmail.com> > Datum: 20.05.18 15:11 (GMT+01:00) > An: dev@groovy.apache.org > Cc: pa...@asert.com.au > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9 > > 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 > >
