Makes sense. In all cases the reason for files being removed is simple: the files in question did not belong to Oracle and therefore could not be donated by Oracle to Apache.
For example, Oracle does not own the Safari trademark and therefore cannot donate the Safari trademarked logos and icons to Apache. The question in Apache is whether those files, e.g., the Safari logo, are licensed in such a way that they can be stored in Apache Git and distributed as part of an Apache project. Indeed none of these questions apply to the files targeted for the alpha release, i.e., the NetBeans Platform. Plus note again that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so long as their limitations are clearly documented. Gj On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 at 00:59, Lars Bruun-Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > I have been going through this list. > > There are various categories of what has been done to the donation branch: > > - Binary artifacts removed because they are the product of some other part > of the source tree > - DTDs and XSDs removed (quite a lot more than has been uncovered so far) > - Icons replaced with standard (dummy) NetBeans icon, for example all icons > for Chrome, Safari, IE, etc have been replaced by a dummy > - ...etc > > There are also many changes that are quite ok and which won't hurt. But > certainly not true for all of them. > > For all changes it is true that the commit message is extremely short, > never more than one line, and never once explains *why* the change was > required. An example: Why was it necessary to strip color profiles from > icons? Anyway, we will have to guess. > > It is too much for one person to review. I suggest to split the list of > changes similar to what we did for the module review. For each change it > should be evaluated what to do about it. If an action needs to be taken > (e.g. to reverse) then log an issue for it in JIRA under a special tag, > e.g. "donation fixes". > > What do you say to this approach? If so I'll create a Confluence page to > track review progress. Compared to module review it is a lot smaller in > magnitude but still requires a structured approach. > > In my mind the Alpha-Preview release task can still continue and doesn't > have to wait for this. As long as that release is labeled "alpha" and has > lots of big fat disclaimers on it. > > > On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 10:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for this investigation. > > > > Gj > > > > On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 22:32, Lars Bruun-Hansen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I think we need this. > > > > > > The following URL is - to the best of my Hg knowledge* - a list of all > > > changes done specifically to the donation.zip. (1st donation) .. > before > > it > > > was handed over to Apache NetBeans. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/log?revcount=1500&; > > rev=%28branch%28%27donation_review%27%29+and+ancestors% > > 28tag%28%271st_donation%27%29%29%29+-+merge%28%29 > > > > > > > > > In plain text, this is the following search: > > > > > > "(branch('donation_review') and ancestors(tag('1st_donation'))) - > > merge()" > > > > > > > > > Enjoy > > > > > > > > > *) Hope someone with better Hg skills can verify. :-) > > > > > >
