NetBeans activities at JavaOne 2017

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

For everyone coming to JavaOne in San Francisco, here's a long list of
sessions you can attend, as well as a get together set for Saturday
September 30:

https://jaxenter.com/netbeans/netbeans-activities-javaone-2017

Possibly there are others that could be listed above -- let me know and
I'll add them.

Thanks,

Gj

Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, it's done: 29334 are relicensed to ASF.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> We've been discussing this a while now. I'm going to take the tool and run
> it, relicensing around 29,000, as documented here:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> NetBeans+Transition+Process
>
> I'll then do the push of those changed headers. I'm also on the Infra chat
> just in case something goes wrong, i.e., Infra is in the loop.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can someone create a repo for tools for Apache NetBeans, i.e.,
>> incubator-netbeans-tools?
>>
>> Also, can someone verify that the license header pattern is good? We want
>> to minimize as much as possible the situation where later on someone tells
>> us we did something wrong and need to do things all over again from
>> scratch, revert commits, etc etc.
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>
>>> The tool is currently a zip attached to the wiki - but the zip contains a
>>> git repository, so no history is lost. I just tried to create a new
>>> repository (incubator-netbeans-tools) using:
>>> https://reporeq.apache.org/
>>>
>>> but it seems I cannot create such a repository.
>>>
>>> Aside for this, any comments on the license headers pattern that could be
>>> replaced? More details here:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBean
>>> s+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-Toolforanalyz
>>> ingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacre...@apache.org
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
>>> > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool...
>>> >
>>> > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a
>>> > specific "tools" repository.
>>> >
>>> > -Bertrand
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Builds and tests

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Excellent!

Gj

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:20 AM, Jaroslav Tulach  wrote:

> Hi.
> I am not sure if that has been announced before, but we have two Jenkins
> builders building NetBeans on Linux and Windows and running all platform
> tests
>
> $ ant build
> $ ant test-platform
>
> the builds are at
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-windows/
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-linux/
>
> Best regards.
> -jt
>

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hopefully fixed, i.e., I pushed the standard Apache license. That's all we
need for the source release.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks! Assumed that file was the same for all projects, will investigate
> and fix.
>
> Gj
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
>> Just to give a bit of a hand
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/
>> LICENSE#L277-L285 - you don't need to repeat the apache license, if
>> there's a NOTICE that needs to get replicated, HOWEVER, the paths to the
>> files listed don't exist in this repo so its not really valid.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-09-20 16:20, Geertjan Wielenga 
>> wrote:
>> > For the source release, in the top-level folder of incubator-netbeans, a
>> > LICENSE and NOTICE are now present:
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57
>> >
>> > Gj
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:27 PM, John D. Ament 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > So far, I like the discussion I'm seeing happening on list.  The
>> feedback
>> > > from Ate and Bertrand makes a lot of sense.
>> > >
>> > > On 2017-09-20 09:38, Geertjan Wielenga > com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or
>> > > someone
>> > > > who knows:
>> > > > 1. Is there any reason why we would not simply have one NOTICE and
>> one
>> > > > LICENSE file, i.e., in the top level of incubator-netbeans. In other
>> > > words,
>> > > > why and under what conditions would we want to have more than that?
>> > >
>> > > For your source release, yes.  However, the NOTICE file as mentioned
>> here
>> > > should be kept as minimal as possible.  E.g. don't include stuff that
>> > > doesn't belong.  Hence why its typically harder to build the NOTICE
>> for the
>> > > binaries.
>> > >
>> > > Likewise, your LICENSE file should only include whats in the actual
>> > > release.
>> > >
>> > > > 2. Since the NOTICE and LICENSE apply to the sources only, what
>> about the
>> > > > JARs that we're pulling in during the build and that will be part
>> of the
>> > > > distribution? We're not storing these binaries in the repo since
>> the repo
>> > > > is for sources only. However, where/how must these be listed and
>> what are
>> > > > the conditions they must comply with in order to be distributed as
>> part
>> > > of
>> > > > the convenience binary?
>> > >
>> > > Typically, as mentioned in the thread, for your actual JAR files the
>> > > LICENSE/NOTICE goes into META-INF.  Assuming you're not importing any
>> other
>> > > third party code, then using the standard ASF LICENSE/NOTICE in your
>> JARs
>> > > is perfectly sufficient.  However, if you create a binary distribution
>> > > (e.g. tarball) then that tarball should include a LICENSE and NOTICE
>> that
>> > > represents whats in that tarball.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > >
>> > > > Gj
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> > > bdelacre...@apache.org
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda 
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is
>> > > created
>> > > > > > for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only
>> for that
>> > > > > > subset, right?...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ideally yes.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Considering that binaries are not Apache releases, however,
>> that's not
>> > > > > as important as in source releases where having a minimal NOTICE
>> is a
>> > > > > strong requirement.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Bertrand
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Neil C Smith
 wrote:
> ...Take
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/apisupport.wizards/src/org/netbeans/modules/apisupport/project/ui/wizard/wizard/instantiatingIterator.javx

Ok - IIUC that's a template that NetBeans uses at runtime to generate Java code?

> ...This didn't used to have a license header at all prior to the donation I
> believe?...

If that file is going to be included in the NetBeans release, it needs
a license header indeed.

> ...I assume from the way that
> the license has been added to the template it's effectively a comment, and
> so the output of the template process is still a file with no license,
> which is as it should be in my opinion...

If the template process is run by a NetBeans user then I agree, the
generated file doesn't need a license header. I suppose such generated
files are mostly boilerplate anyway and do not contain rocket science
algorithms that might need to be appropriately licensed.

> ...I'm wondering at what point, if at
> all, the code generated by a template in this way becomes determined as
> needing to carry the Apache license?...

It's only files which are included in the NetBeans release which need
an Apache license header.

Does this clarify things?

-Bertrand

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Neil C Smith]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:26 AM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Neil C Smith
>  wrote:
> > ...I assume we wouldn't want the output of
> > them to be under any kind of license?...
>
> As a podling, NetBeans releases are approved by the Incubator PMC, and
> I doubt they would approve a release containing files with no license.
>
>
Not quite what I had in mind, though.  Take

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/apisupport.wizards/src/org/netbeans/modules/apisupport/project/ui/wizard/wizard/instantiatingIterator.javx

This didn't used to have a license header at all prior to the donation I
believe?  So, the file itself has a license, but I assume from the way that
the license has been added to the template it's effectively a comment, and
so the output of the template process is still a file with no license,
which is as it should be in my opinion.  I'm wondering at what point, if at
all, the code generated by a template in this way becomes determined as
needing to carry the Apache license?

Best wishes,

Neil
-- 
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net

Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Jan Lahoda]

If in NetBeans IDE the user does New/Java Class, then (I think) this
template will be instantiated:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=blob;f=java.project.ui/src/org/netbeans/modules/java/project/ui/resources/Class.java.template;h=e9890cf1ebbfa872259a65b4259e10fd05053a79;hb=HEAD

So, there may be two separate questions:
a) what is the license of the template (for which I don't personally see a
problem be the Apache License)
b) what is the license of the file created from the template (where I
suspect it would be a problem if the license would had to be the Apache
license, regardless of the target project)

Of course, this is not the only template NB has, and not the only way to
generate code for the user in the IDE. But the main question to me is what
is the license of the code the IDE generates for the user.

Jan


On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Neil C Smith
>  wrote:
> > ...I assume we wouldn't want the output of
> > them to be under any kind of license?...
>
> As a podling, NetBeans releases are approved by the Incubator PMC, and
> I doubt they would approve a release containing files with no license.
>
> See "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" at
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html for details.
>
> If someone want to discuss other options best is to do so on the
> general@incubator.a.o list, as they're the ones who would approve or
> reject such variants. We can discuss as much as we want here but
> things which are outside ASF policy (which as explained is meant to
> simplify things at the Foundation level as well as for our users)
> won't fly.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Neil C Smith]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:58 AM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emilian Bold 
> wrote:
> > ...But it's a bit silly no? Any new project based on an Apache sample
> would have to post a notice about the Apache
> > license and include a copy of the license
>
> So we do require some consistency to make things easier. The Apache
> License is one of those invariants.
>
> Also, if our sample code turns into the next Google, we want to be
> credited for that - it's the only thing we'd get ;-)
>
>
Kind of understand both points of view there, but veering more to Emi's on
this particular point.  My concern would be more about how we handle code
generated by wizards, templates, etc.  The example projects are one end of
the scale there, but there are other project and file templates that
generate quite a lot of code, and I assume we wouldn't want the output of
them to be under any kind of license?!  Just wondering where the line gets
drawn here?

Best wishes,

Neil
-- 
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net

Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emilian Bold  wrote:

> Pe 21 sept. 2017, la 09:51, Bertrand Delacretaz  a 
> scris:
>> ...Code produced by the ASF must use the Apache License, so that's not an
>> option here...
> ...But it's a bit silly no? Any new project based on an Apache sample would 
> have to post a notice about the Apache
> license and include a copy of the license

To keep things simple, the ASF is often reluctant to handle special
cases - you probably know that foundation has to oversee about 300
projects on a relatively small budget [1] - currently less than $5K
per project per year.

So we do require some consistency to make things easier. The Apache
License is one of those invariants.

Also, if our sample code turns into the next Google, we want to be
credited for that - it's the only thing we'd get ;-)

-Bertrand

[1] 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2017/board_minutes_2017_04_19.txt
- "Approve the 2018 FY ASF Budget"

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Emilian Bold]

But it's a bit silly no? Any new project based on an Apache sample would have 
to post a notice about the Apache license and include a copy of the license.

--emi

Pe 21 sept. 2017, la 09:51, Bertrand Delacretaz  a 
scris:

> Hi,
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Emilian Bold  
>> wrote:
>> ...My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing
>> thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter.
>> Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public 
>> Domain...
> 
> Code produced by the ASF must use the Apache License, so that's not an
> option here.
> 
> -Bertrand

Re: Sample code license [WAS: Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git]

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Emilian Bold  wrote:
> ...My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing
> thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter.
> Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public 
> Domain...

Code produced by the ASF must use the Apache License, so that's not an
option here.

-Bertrand

Builds and tests

[Jaroslav Tulach]

Hi.
I am not sure if that has been announced before, but we have two Jenkins 
builders building NetBeans on Linux and Windows and running all platform tests 

$ ant build
$ ant test-platform

the builds are at

https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-windows/
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-linux/

Best regards.
-jt