[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

If you think about it, calling it 2.6 is not consistent at all (except from a very formal point of view), since it is, in fact, 3.0-- .

(And adding more digits after 2.99/2.97) does not convey any additional meaning and just looks silly imho.)

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Keith Suderman <suderman@xxxxxxx>
Datum: 20.05.18 16:28 (GMT+01:00)
An: dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9


I'm going to rain on the parade.  I like consistent versioning and skipping versions is not consistent.  Why not 2.999 or 2.9999999 then?

- Keith

On May 20, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+1 but alternatively, we could just skip 2.6 and go straight to 3.0.

Le dim. 20 mai 2018 à 15:25, mg <mgbiz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
2.9.0 could make people ask themselves where 2.6/2.7/2.8 went, whereas 2.97 is so far from 2.5, that I think people would get that it means more "3.0 minus small, but (significant) delta" (i.e. not just an epsilon, as with 2.99, which Russel suggested). Plus the "7" has a mnemonic quality, making it easier for everyone to remember what the main point of this release was...

(2.9 would be much better than 2.6, though...)

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Andres Almiray <aalmiray@xxxxxxxxx>
Datum: 20.05.18 15:11 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

I’d suggest to keep it simple, go with 2.9.0. 

Sent from my primitive Tricorder

On 20 May 2018, at 21:50, mg <mgbiz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What about 2.97 ? Incorporates a JDK 7 reference, and is not too close to 3.0 (Bugfixes could go into 2.97.1 etc..., so the "7" could be kept).

-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Von: Russel Winder <russel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Datum: 20.05.18 12:26 (GMT+01:00)
Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Renumber Groovy 2.6 to 2.9

On Sun, 2018-05-20 at 13:58 +1000, Paul King wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering what people thought about renumbering Groovy 2.6 to 2.9.
> It is only a subtle change but I think better conveys that it isn't a small
> step up
> from 2.5 but rather something just a bit short of 3.

If it is to be the last 2.X release why not 2.99 to make it more "in your

Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w:

Keith Suderman
Research Associate
Department of Computer Science
Vassar College, Poughkeepsie NY