I would say 3 as well 2018-06-13 10:04 GMT+02:00 Robert Oschwald <robertoschw...@gmail.com>:
> 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> 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] >> *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 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.dawson@ >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > > 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. > > >
