No one on FoN is associated with Azul (anymore). :-) No preferred anything.
It’s an attempt to provide a repo we can all contribute to together. Gj On Sun, 21 Jun 2026 at 23:42, Laszlo Kishalmi <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, I have some concerns on FoN. According to their main page it's a > group of 3 people, possibly affiliated with Azul Systems (as a preferred > JDK Vendor). The main page states the latest version they provided was > NetBeans 28. > > From the outside, it does not seem to function well at the moment. > > Looking at Codelerity, creating packages with Eclipse Temurin JDK. > The site it seems be more complete. > > I do not feel that the PMC should extend its reach and sign/test third > party distributions. As on NB we could provide a list, on parties, those > provides binary installers, though probably shall not favor any. > > I would really move the Snap packages out of Apache, though I'm not sure > that FoN would be the place to move. > > I recognize that this could lead to fragmentation of binaries. My view > on that has shifted during the recent years. I think that's not > necessary a bad thing. I could imagine a company or an university would > create a binary without ergonomics, releasing a pure Java or PHP IDEs, > solely PHP development or education purposes. > > > On 6/16/26 02:11, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 at 22:58, Matthias Bläsing > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am Sonntag, dem 07.06.2026 um 19:43 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga: > >>> It’s just me, Pieter, and Timon. With the idea of working towards a > >>> reproducible Apache NetBeans approved process for generating > installers and > >>> gathering funds and potentially enabling the providing of support. But > all > >>> things take time. > >> my take aways from the points raised are: > >> > >> * FoN is a small group, that is willing to work with the PMC > >> * The JDK bundled with FoN build should be a JDK matching > >> OpenJDK, without additional modules > >> * The ASF release process is what must finish before publication of > >> the FoN build can happen. > >> * Requests from the PMC should be honoured, especially if it concerns > >> potentially distributing unreleased binaries > >> * FoN should not distribute NetBeans without JDK > >> > >> This does not sound that undoable?! > > Agreed, although this misses one other point which I consider at least > > as important. Community installers should be built, tested and signed > > off by a PMC member. That is fundamentally different from independent > > third-party installers. They are produced and advertised in sync with > > our release candidates and releases. > > > > The point of migrating the installers from me (Codelerity) to FoAN, > > when people wanted them to be the primary installers, was two-fold. > > Remove Codelerity as the responsible entity (which I've been trying to > > do for years and still hasn't happened) and allow opening up build > > access to other PMC members so our linked installers are not tied to > > one person. This was discussed in multiple threads here before. > > > > *If* we decide or vote on an alternative to the PMC requirement, then > > we need to know how the installers will be tested and signed off, how > > syncing will work, and how we don't just land maintenance issues > > upstream given installer issues affecting the IDE or packager cannot > > then be resolved directly by the person doing the installer release. > > > > If we don't change the criteria, then as I said earlier, the workload > > for the PMC of running installers here or externally is really the > > same. Ignoring the initial setup to bring them back or whether > > non-JDK installers are actually desirable. > > > > There are 66 PMC members who could run this process, two of whom are > > involved directly in FoAN. There are 83 committers if we expanded the > > pool of people to them. To quote you - this does not sound that > > undoable?! > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > > >
