Same with me. Option 3 seems best, even when some of our projects are still on Grails 2.
> Am 13.06.2018 um 09:50 schrieb Søren Berg Glasius <soe...@glasius.dk>: > > While the project I'm on is still on JDK 7, but due to Grails 2.x I think > that option 3 is the best way to move forward (and nudge projects on to a > higher version of Grails as well). > > /Søren > > On Wed, 13 Jun 2018, 09.42 , <william.w.man...@wellsfargo.com > <mailto:william.w.man...@wellsfargo.com>> wrote: > I agree on option 3 (abandon 2.6 immediately). > > > > JDK 6 or 7 is not in use anywhere that I have project visibility. > > > > 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. > > > > Best Regards > > > > 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 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 Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:11 AM, David Dawson > <david.daw...@simplicityitself.com > <mailto: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 <mailto:pa...@asert.com.au> > Sent: 13 June 2018 08:06 > > To: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto:users@groovy.apache.org> > Reply to: users@groovy.apache.org <mailto: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. > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen, > > Søren Berg Glasius > > Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark > Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius > --- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes. >
