: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning
Hi folks,
We never really resolved a clear direction for our on-going plans in terms of
when to bump our minimum version. There was a poll on twitter back when this
discussion started:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/ApacheGroovy/status
ted 5_0_X branch.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers, Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:44 AM Remi Forax wrote:
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > > From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)"
p the version in master to 6 and backport such a
> change onto a newly created 5_0_X branch.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers, Paul.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022 at 1:44 AM Remi Forax wrote:
> >
> > - Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mi
Milles, Eric (TR Technology)"
> > To: "dev"
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:59:52 PM
> > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning
>
> > I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods
> > (GROOVY-8299, GROOVY-9801, GR
- Original Message -
> From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 4:59:52 PM
> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning
> I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods
> (GROOV
I was interested in native interface default/private/static methods
(GROOVY-8299, GROOVY-9801, GROOVY-1) for Groovy 5. There was discussion on
what was needed for this at one point. Does anyone remember if Java 8 was
holding us back in this area?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROO
> From: "Milles, Eric (TR Technology)"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 3:29:54 PM
> Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 5 planning
> Is there a compelling reason to drop support for Java 8? I don't see it
> holding
> us back quite
Is there a compelling reason to drop support for Java 8? I don't see it
holding us back quite like Java 7 support in Groovy 2.5 means no use of
lambdas, optional, functional interfaces, etc.
From: Paul King
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:58 AM
To: Groovy_Developers
Subject: [EXT] Re: [DISCUS
