On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 at 18:21, Matthias Bläsing <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the best option would be to have the installers inside the > project, but that might be only a long term goal and needs someone, > that really wants that.
Well, it would need a small team of people who want it. We have too many release things that rely on one person already. > Having an organisation that provides installer for NetBeans and is > associated with the projects is IMHO the second best. If really only > timing was the problem last time, I think that can indeed be improved. Timing was a problem, but in some ways a lesser one - mistakes happen. That the release was not taken down when pointed out, that it was picked up by winget, and that thousands of Windows users got upgraded from NB29 with a JDK to an unreleased NB30 without a JDK is a concern. The process also needs review to ensure that publishing cannot happen inadvertently in the future. Multiple PMC members have raised issues with the JDK combinations on offer (should just be JDK 26), and we agreed that a no-JDK installer would only be released within the project, not externally. However, the PMC is obviously free to agree to change its mind, if it wants to .... > What I see as an issue is, that "Friends of NetBeans" is opaque. I > found a handful of messages here (I did not check whether these were on > private@ or dev@) about "them". I'm aware that most (all?) release > communication, apart from the announcements, happens on the slack > channel, so are the people doing the "Friends of NetBeans" releasers > aware of that and integrated? Would it be a good idea to have them > there? Given almost all the release management work is falling on Eric these days, I'm not sure how much he discusses this with himself on Slack! :-) Joking aside, Michael and I do try and help out on a few things, and that discussion does tend to happen there. Pieter is a guest on the Slack channel. Any PMC member can obviously join. That a PMC member considers FoAN opaque concerns me, but I agree that the lack of PMC engagement is becoming an issue. As I stated in my first email, we've had a community installer definition that amounts to "NetBeans packages bundled with the latest, recommended JDK, built, tested and signed off by a PMC member". That has been discussed and reviewed as part of listing them over the years. I have not deviated from that delivering the currently listed installers, and would not without review. If the PMC wants to change that definition, it can do. If someone wants us to, they can propose something else. But that has to be a PMC decision to discuss and agree. The PMC also has responsibility for protecting the use of the name Apache NetBeans. Pending an agreement on a Memorandum of Understanding between the PMC and FoAN that the board recommended we do 6 months ago, the distribution of community installers is the only activity that could be said to have been consented to in any way by the PMC. Maybe given your comment even that is a statement you'd question? If FoAN is going to succeed, and I think it would be very good if it did, the scope of its activity needs to be agreed with the PMC. In my opinion, the Friends of Apache Groovy definition is a good definition to consider, and certainly the transparency there would be a good model to start from - https://opencollective.com/friends-of-groovy#category-ABOUT Still, FoAN has to propose something we can discuss and agree on. Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
