Groovy

[Scott Kitterman]

On Friday, January 13, 2012 11:40:06 AM James Page wrote:
> Hi Brian
> 
> On 11/01/12 19:34, brian.thomason at gmail.com wrote:
> > I saw the thread concerning the Debian auto-syncs, and the groovy
> > issue caught my eye.  We recently created a groovy-1.7 package for
> > the same reasons you're contemplating creating a 1.8 package, as
> > eucalyptus still doesn't yet work properly with 1.8. (though it is
> > in the plans to fix in the near feature)
> > 
> > I'm just here to add my two cents (maybe just one cent) that I'd
> > much rather see a 1.8 package for groovy allowing the 2.0 to remain
> > since this is an LTS and at some point during its supported life,
> > we'll likely move to it.
> 
> I think we need to be careful as to what the 'default' version of
> groovy is as this will have had the most amount of testing during the
> development cycle; I think that should be 1.8.5 as this is current
> stable - I have no objection to having groovy 2.0 in the release but
> bearing in mind its current release status this should be optional -
> i.e. through having a groovy-2.0 package rather than changing the
> groovy package to 2.0.0.
> 
> We have a similar challenge with Java - 6 will be the default but 7 is
> available in a separate package IF you want to use it.

The groovy package is already 2.0.0, so we can't give it a lower number.

Scott K