In the past, we've had some version changes like these in the past, at least once or twice. It's a bit weird but not that confusing, and ultimately users don't care all that much, and usually even forget about it :-)
That said, I don't have a strong opinion. To Russel's points, we might save us some time by just focusing on updates of 2.5 and 3.0, rather than the current 4 branches maintained. Even if 2.6(9) and 3.0 are close, it's not critical if the numbers are close too. So I'd tend to not even bother with renumbering at all. But frankly, I don't mind :-) Guillaume On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 5:12 PM, John Wagenleitner < john.wagenleit...@gmail.com> wrote: > My opinion is that it should be left as 2.6. Since 2.6 has already > undergone several pre-releases I think it will may be more confusing to > re-number now. Renumbering may also give the impression that a 2.7 or 2.8 > might be coming or at least make some wonder what happened to those > versions. > > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:58 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> 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. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Cheers, Paul. >> >> -- Guillaume Laforge Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/ Twitter: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge>
