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 Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson < david.daw...@simplicityitself.com> wrote: > I would vote 2. > > Actually, i would vote 3) abandon 2.6 immediately. > > No projects I have any knowledge of still use jdk 7. > > *From:* pa...@asert.com.au > *Sent:* 13 June 2018 08:06 > *To:* 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 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 many of you > know, we have released alpha versions of Groovy 2.6. That version is a > backport of most but not all of Groovy 3.0 to JDK7 including the Parrot > parser (though it isn't enabled by default). The purpose of this version > has always been to assist people/projects wanting to use the Parrot parser > but who might be stuck on JDK7. So in some sense it is an intermediate > version to assist with porting towards Groovy 3.0. While that is still a > noble goal in theory, in practice, many of our users are already on JDK8 > and we have limited resources to work on many potential areas. > > With that in mind, we'd like to understand the preferences in our user > base for the following two options: > > Option 1: please continue releasing the best possible 2.6 even if that > slows down the final release of Groovy 3.0 and delays further work on > better support for JDK9+. > > Option 2: please release one more alpha of 2.6 over the next month or so > which will become the best version to use to assist porting for users stuck > on JDK7 and then focus on 3.0. The 2.6 branch will essentially be retired > though we will consider PRs from the community for critical fixes. > > Feedback welcome. > > Cheers, Paul. > > >
