RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

As you can see, many fixes/improvements are accumulated in the master branch[1], i.e. 3.0.0 branch, so groovy 3.0.0 is making progress but moves a bit slow. We wish 3.0.0 GA could be released next year(2019). Absolutely, some milestone releases will be released Before GA. Cheers, Daniel.Sun [1] h

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed feedback on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead and do one more 2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less work

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Hi Paul, sensible choice imho :-) Cheers, mg On 23.06.2018 03:53, Paul King wrote: There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed feedback on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead and do one more 2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

There was overwhelming support to drop 2.6 to focus on 3.0 and mixed feedback on whether to do one more 2.6 alpha release or not. So, I'll go ahead and do one more 2.6 alpha release - quite possibly much less work than further discussions and it gives us a clean end point which I am highly in favou

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

option #2 for me On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:06 AM Paul King wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to > include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discu

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I too vote for option 3. On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Cédric Champeau wrote: > I vote for option 3 > > Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder a > écrit : > >> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote: >> > > >> […] >> > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I vote for option 3 Le jeu. 14 juin 2018 à 18:46, Russel Winder a écrit : > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote: > > > > […] > > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of > 2.6.0 > > anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 14:53 -0400, Keith Suderman wrote: > > […] > How about an option #4. If you are planning to do one more release of 2.6.0 > anyway just drop the 'alpha' from the name and announce that it is the first > and last 2.6.x release expected. > I think this would be a bad idea. We

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

(Views below are my own, but I think a lot of the other NiFi PMC members would agree) I think the Groovy users in the Apache NiFi community would benefit far more from focusing on 3.0 and dropping 2.6. They're already forced to be on Java 8 because we require it as a baseline for the last several

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

A non-alpha 2.6.0 is a possibility but not my favored approach. On our roadmap for 3.0 we are still fleshing out numerous things: * we have a version of native lambdas but perhaps not how our final design might look * we have to decide whether default methods in interfaces should be implemented us

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I strongly advocate for option 2. I think the biggest threat to the future of Groovy is JDK9 support. > On Jun 13, 2018, at 3:05 AM, Paul King wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy > 3.0. Some of that discussion was around

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Option 2 or 3.  I'm running Grails 2.5.3 on JDK 8, although I intend to upgrade to the current versions, when I have the time for that. On 2018-06-13 07:53 , Scott Hickey wrote: I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to recognize that enterprises can't always move quic

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

> On Jun 13, 2018, at 2:17 PM, Paul King wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson > > wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > > We identified a few major things that were broken in the

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 5:11 PM, David Dawson < david.daw...@simplicityitself.com> wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > We identified a few major things that were broken in the previous alpha release of 2.6 but only due to trivial packaging issues, hen

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Corum, Michael wrote: > If 3.0 will still support JDK8, I’d vote for option 3 as well. If 3 will > require 9, then maybe option 2. > > > Groovy 3.0 has JDK8 as minimum. Cheers, Paul.

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

esday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM TO: users@groovy.apache.org SUBJECT: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on fu

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I've have always appreciated the willingness of the Groovy team to recognize that enterprises can't always move quickly to current versions of Java. At Mutual of Omaha, we do have almost everything running on JDK 8 now. We are actively trying to get our few remaining Grails 2.x versions upgraded t

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

UBJECT: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 Hi everyone, There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

ISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a pressing issue. Users are concerned about the ability of Groovy to run on future JDK releases (including GraalVM), more than legacy support. Cheers, p On

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Option 2 or 3 from my side. I have thought about this, and given the fast movement of the Java universe at the moment it seems the right move, from a resources and public perception point of view. Also, Groovy 2.5 is not too shabby, so still being on JDK 7 it is not like "no Groovy for you" ;

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

;> *T* 636.736.7066 >> >> *www.rgare.com <http://www.rgare.com>* >> >> >> >> *From: *Paul King >> *Reply-To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" , " >> pa...@asert.com.au" >> *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM >&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

* > > > > *From: *Paul King > *Reply-To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" , " > pa...@asert.com.au" > *Date: *Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM > *To: *"users@groovy.apache.org" > *Subject: *[DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

-To: "users@groovy.apache.org" , "pa...@asert.com.au" Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 2:06 AM To: "users@groovy.apache.org" Subject: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 External e-mail. Use caution! / Cour

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

As with everyone else: option 3, or even just solving the Java9+ issue separate from 3.0 is much more important than JDK7. Cheers, Simon On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Iván López wrote: > I also vote for Option 3. I think it is better to focus on JDK 9+ than in > JDK 7. > > Regards, Iván. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

I also vote for Option 3. I think it is better to focus on JDK 9+ than in JDK 7. Regards, Iván. -- @ilopmar On 13 June 2018 at 11:30, Russel Winder wrote: > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 08:11 +0100, David Dawson wrote: > > I would vote 2. > > > > Actually, i would vot

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 08:11 +0100, David Dawson wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > I vote for Option 3, abandon 2.6 immediately. With so little resource, the Groovy project must focus on forward looking work, not backward looking stuff. JDK10 is wh

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Hi, For me, Groovy 3.0 is the most important thing. Chris Le mer. 13 juin 2018 à 09:06, Paul King a écrit : > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to > include and ha

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 Hi everyone, There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss that right now. O

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

upport. >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> *From:* Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM >> *To:* users@groovy.apache.org >> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential r

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

> From: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com > <mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM > To: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

> Best Regards > > > > *From:* Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM > *To:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on > Groovy 3.0 > > > > I agr

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

. Best Regards From: Paolo Di Tommaso [mailto:paolo.ditomm...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:18 AM To: users@groovy.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). Full support for JKD9+ is becoming a

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

*Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy > 3.0 > > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we w

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

o:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Reply to:* users@groovy.apache.org > *Subject:* [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy > 3.0 > > > Hi everyone, > > There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of > Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion

Re: [DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0 Hi everyone,There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss that right now.One of the

[DISCUSS] Groovy 2.6 potential retirement to focus on Groovy 3.0

Hi everyone, There was some discussion at gr8conf about how to speed up delivery of Groovy 3.0. Some of that discussion was around the scope of what we want to include and have yet to complete in 3.0 but I won't discuss that right now. One of the other discussion points was Groovy around 2.6. As