Nope. No special knowledge needed, at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4PBNSRp5g8
Gj On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Christian Lenz <[email protected]> wrote: > I don’t know as much for this Review, so it would be better if there is > someone else who is doing this, with more advanced experiences. > > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10 > > Von: Geertjan Wielenga > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 09:11 > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: Allow code contributions or focus on release only? > > Sure your PR will get merged, just not right now since we're focused on > getting Apache NetBeans released. Do you want to join in with the Module > Review? > > Gj > > On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 at 09:06, Christian Lenz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > So I should not doing any PR (my #3 PR will not be merged, right?) and I > > should do it on Feature Branches? How is the process for Review and > > merging? If we have 19275 feature branches, no one knows, when the > Feature > > is finish. Maybe we should have a release branch where we should merge > the > > stuff from Feature into release or whatever to make it clear: my Feature > is > > ready for Review/use etc. > > > > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10 > > > > Von: Geertjan Wielenga > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 27. September 2017 00:28 > > An: [email protected] > > Betreff: Re: Allow code contributions or focus on release only? > > > > Yup -- and corresponds with what we're doing. > > > > I love it when a plan comes together. > > > > Gj > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:03 AM, Wade Chandler <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > That all sounds like a good strategy to me. > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Wade > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2017 17:44, "Craig Russell" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I have no dog in this particular hunt, but if it were up to me I'd > > > > prioritize: > > > > > > > > getting code into repositories with clean RAT reports > > > > getting Netbeans to build and run > > > > creating release(s) for major platforms > > > > ... > > > > serious bug reports > > > > ... > > > > features (in branches) > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:16 PM, Sven Reimers <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > I fully agree with Jan.. > > > > > > > > > > Let's try to get something released first so we know the process.. > > > > > > > > > > Hope to have some time to review modules real soon now.. > > > > > > > > > > -Sven > > > > > > > > > > Am 26.09.2017 22:13 schrieb "Jan Lahoda" <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (I think that if we want to get some rest and fun, we could use > > > > branches > > > > >> to experiment with some new features (and I may do so at some > > point), > > > > but > > > > >> we should limit unnecessary changes to master, and use our code > > > > >> review/discussion bandwidth as much as possible for working on a > > > > release) > > > > >> > > > > >> I personally even think we could try to release just the platform > > > (e.g. > > > > >> NetBeans Platform 9.0 beta) once the platform modules are > reviewed. > > > That > > > > >> would help us validate whether the approach we are taking makes > > sense > > > > (and > > > > >> what needs to be improved) and would help us learn about the > release > > > > >> process (and the platform is a useful thing on its own, so > releasing > > > it > > > > >> wouldn't be just an artificial move). > > > > >> > > > > >> Jan > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Michael Nascimento < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Definitely we should focus on getting an Apache NetBeans release. > > > > >>> Sincerely, at this point, I think we should maybe have a Apache > > > > NetBeans > > > > >>> 9.0 Java edition, so we can have something release and then a > full > > > > Apache > > > > >>> NB 9.0. Otherwise, sounds like we'll get no release this year, > > which > > > > >> would > > > > >>> be pretty sad. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Michael > > > > >>> > > > > >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&; > > > > >>> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > >>> Virus-free. > > > > >>> www.avg.com > > > > >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&; > > > > >>> utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > > > >>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:17 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hi all, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> We need to discuss something, I think -- do we begin accepting > > pull > > > > >>>> requests, and thereby encourage pull requests to be created -- > or > > do > > > > we > > > > >>>> focus very narrowly on preparing Apache NetBeans for its first > > > > >> incubator > > > > >>>> release? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If we were to focus narrowly on preparing the Apache release, > then > > > > this > > > > >>> is > > > > >>>> what we would focus on, nothing else: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/ > > > > >>>> List+of+Modules+to+Review > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> At the same time, of course, people want to add their mark to > > Apache > > > > >>>> NetBeans. And that means code or an icon, a menu item, a new UI > > > thing > > > > >> to > > > > >>>> point at and say -- see, I did that! These kinds of enhancements > > > could > > > > >> be > > > > >>>> done at the same time as the above, and would require that some > > > people > > > > >>>> split their time between doing the module reviews and reviewing > > pull > > > > >>>> requests. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I'm not stating a preference here, just putting the discussion > out > > > > >> there, > > > > >>>> since I've seen conflicting opinions about this and I think it > > would > > > > be > > > > >>>> good to discuss this centrally. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Gj > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Craig L Russell > > > > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation > > > > [email protected] http://db.apache.org/jdo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
