date:20190330

Thanks so much Justin and for your involvement.

Wade

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 17:21 Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Changing my vote to:
> +1 (binding)
>
> And I’m sorry for any upset my first vote caused.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi Ted,

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Craig Russell  wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean
>> that they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if they
>> do get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
>> 
>> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the images
>> is going to make trouble?
>> 
> 
> I am kind of stunned to hear this.

> 
> The web site where the images came from says:
> 
> We have an extensive commercial picture library of professional Nature and
>> Pet photographs. Our images are sold on a rights managed basis and can be
>> bought for specific and exclusive uses. All the images on this website are
>> ©Warren Photographic and watermarked with our logo.
> 
> (see https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/about.php)
> 
> This sounds a lot like serious photographers trying to make a living.
> Anybody who goes to the trouble of watermarking their images is pretty
> serious about their work and about people stealing that work.
> 
> But aside from that, quite frankly, Apache is not in the business of
> judging whether somebody is powerful enough or aware enough or rich enough
> or even just cantankerous enough to make trouble for us about copyright
> infringement.

This is way over the top. Please don't go there.

> We don't even do adversarial forks of open source material
> where the license says that it is perfectly fine to do.
> 
> So how can anybody imagine that it is OK to steal some images from people
> who do not grant the rights to use just because they aren't likely to "make
> trouble"?
> 

I am not arguing that the image issue does not need to be resolved. Just the 
opposite.

Perhaps I should have elaborated: Is there a risk that during the next few 
weeks that it will take us to either get permission or remove the image that 
the owner is going to make trouble?

Craig
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> What do other IPMC members think?
>> 
>> I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage
>> them to do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you
>> raised warrant a -1 on the release.
> 
> 
> The issue of the photos has been previously raised. The suggested solution
> was to delete the photos.
> 
> It should be done.

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Ted Dunning

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Craig Russell  wrote:

> 
> > copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean
> that they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if they
> do get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
>
> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the images
> is going to make trouble?
>

I am kind of stunned to hear this.

The web site where the images came from says:

We have an extensive commercial picture library of professional Nature and
> Pet photographs. Our images are sold on a rights managed basis and can be
> bought for specific and exclusive uses. All the images on this website are
> ©Warren Photographic and watermarked with our logo.

(see https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/about.php)

This sounds a lot like serious photographers trying to make a living.
Anybody who goes to the trouble of watermarking their images is pretty
serious about their work and about people stealing that work.

But aside from that, quite frankly, Apache is not in the business of
judging whether somebody is powerful enough or aware enough or rich enough
or even just cantankerous enough to make trouble for us about copyright
infringement. We don't even do adversarial forks of open source material
where the license says that it is perfectly fine to do.

So how can anybody imagine that it is OK to steal some images from people
who do not grant the rights to use just because they aren't likely to "make
trouble"?

> >
> > What do other IPMC members think?
>
> I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage
> them to do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you
> raised warrant a -1 on the release.

The issue of the photos has been previously raised. The suggested solution
was to delete the photos.

It should be done.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi,

Changing my vote to:
+1 (binding)

And I’m sorry for any upset my first vote caused.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

It appears to me that there has been some miscommunication and/or missing 
documentation of the issues raised earlier.

In case it needs to be said, if the PPMC and Justin can come to an agreement, 
there is no need for another build and vote. 

I'd encourage the Mentors to engage with Justin to resolve these issues. 
Specifically, for each item that Justin raised, make sure there is a JIRA. Then 
work through all of the JIRA issues individually. As a community. The Apache 
Way.

Craig

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:01 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> We need to have clarity on what exactly we need to work on in relation to
>> licensing -- we are definitely not going to license data files because (a)
>> Apache does not require it and (2) it would break our tests, which is why
>> Apache does not require it. That's the bulk of the issues raised by Justin.
> 
> The missing headers are not major issue it was the other issues concerning 
> binaries, copyright issues, and missing license text that are the concerns.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi,

I think it was a bit hasty to cancel this vote, after as I said, a -1 vote is 
not a veto and people can change their minds and revote. If you wan to ignore 
the cancel vote please go ahead and do so.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi Justin,

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:06 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean that 
>>> they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if they do 
>>> get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
>> 
>> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the images 
>> is going to make trouble? 
> 
> Professional photographers are generally protective of their work given it 
> how they make a living.

Absolutely. But professional photographers more likely object to use of their 
work in commercial settings. 

What I suggested in my comment on the JIRA is that this issue must be resolved, 
by either getting permission from the owner (perhaps Oracle did this already?) 
or by removing the file from the release.

Craig
> 
>> I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage them 
>> to do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you raised 
>> warrant a -1 on the release.
> 
> There are still some issues to be revolved here still (missing license 
> information in LICENSE and missing license text) but yes it was my mistake to 
> vote -1 on that release.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi,

>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean that 
>> they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if they do 
>> get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
> 
> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the images is 
> going to make trouble? 

Professional photographers are generally protective of their work given it how 
they make a living.

> I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage them 
> to do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you raised 
> warrant a -1 on the release.

There are still some issues to be revolved here still (missing license 
information in LICENSE and missing license text) but yes it was my mistake to 
vote -1 on that release.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

+1 (binding IPMC) to release

Downloaded release artifacts
Imported KEYS
Verified signatures and checksums
Reviewed rat exclusion list
I still want to see the cat and rabbit image resolved 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820 before the next release

Craig

P.S.

I will again raise the question of why the mentors failed to vote on the 
release. I'd like to make it a stronger suggestion that Mentors SHOULD vote on 
releases prior to sending the release vote to the IPMC.

It looks to me like the issues raised on this vote thread have been discussed 
before and resolved. The right place to resolve issues is, well, on JIRA. 

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> And here is the list of items specifically how we dealt with each from
> Justin's previous list of comments with the +1 from the 10.0 IPMC vote
> thread, in other words, we have taken his issues and concerns seriously and
> discussed them and dealt with them:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/10.0-vc5 
> 
> 
> How much better a citizen of the Apache Way can one be than we have been in
> responding and dealing with licensing concerns of all shapes and sizes.
> 
> Gj
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi,

> We need to have clarity on what exactly we need to work on in relation to
> licensing -- we are definitely not going to license data files because (a)
> Apache does not require it and (2) it would break our tests, which is why
> Apache does not require it. That's the bulk of the issues raised by Justin.

The missing headers are not major issue it was the other issues concerning 
binaries, copyright issues, and missing license text that are the concerns.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi Justin,

> On Mar 29, 2019, at 7:24 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> - Have made several releases before.
> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to fix.
> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.

I think this in incorrect. There is only one issue that I know of that seems to 
have been closed before being resolved 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820
While this issue is only three months old, it should not have been closed.
> 
> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still have to 
> draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the binary 
> in source code,

The binaries have been discussed in detail and from my read of their analysis, 
there is good reason to include them.

> license issues

The license issues have been discussed in detail and from my read, there is 
good reason to include them.

> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean that 
> they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if they do get 
> 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.

We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the images is 
going to make trouble? 
> 
> What do other IPMC members think?

I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage them to 
do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you raised warrant a 
-1 on the release.

Craig

> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. Curiously this is the second time I’ve vote -1 because of a cat photo 
> taken by a professional photographer has been included in a source release
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 

Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi,

> Your are right to call me or on do it or get out, if I choose to champion or 
> mentor another project here I will do it within that project. That is, as a 
> mentor /champion I will ensure the project did not need the IPMC to vote and 
> this this whole discussion would not be necessary, for that project.


The only way you could do that I believe is go straight to TLP, as currently 
binding votes on releases need to come from IPMC members. I believe, (but could 
be mistaken), that it would require the board to change this.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi,

> +1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these issues"
> is false, insulting, and misleading.

I'm sorry about that, I looked at the release and saw no changes from the last 
review and wrongly assumed that previous feedback had not been discussed. I 
should have looked deeper or asked some more questions before voting.

I still have some concerns re the binary files, but if your mentors are fine 
with it then that’s OK by me, and the copyright issue is going to be addressed 
by removing the files in question so that good.

However, there’s still one major licensing issue that was brought in both 
releases that I cannot find any discussion on. That is you seem to be in 
violation of several licenses conditions by not including the full license 
text. 

The other less serious issue is missing stuff from the LICENSE file, I’ve not 
done an exhaustive check but a simple spot check showed the release to included 
BSD licensed files that were not mentioned din LICENSE. They are probably more 
files like this.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Dave Fisher

Hi -

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 12:01 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> +1 Thanks for these sensible words and probably what comes closest to what
> you're looking for is the Rat exclusions file, i.e., these are the
> deviations in terms of licensing in relation to what most people expect
> from Apache projects and why things are fine despite that:
> 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

I was just writing about that:

Well - it is certainly possible to investigate history of the rat exclude file 
(or any other).

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/commits/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

From there one can follow on to JIRA issues, etc. Choices were made. There is a 
lot to unpack and none of it looks thoughtless.

So, if one is going to take the excursion then you have to go all the way!

BTW - All four of your mentors: Ate Douma (ate), Bertrand Delacretaz 
(bdelacretaz), Daniel Gruno (humbedooh), Mark Struberg (struberg) are 
experienced and well respected.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> If more or clearer descriptions are needed to the above, let us know, we're
> very happy to add any and all info needed.
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:44 PM David Jencks 
> wrote:
> 
>> Personally, I’d appreciate it if everyone involved in this discussion
>> decided that all parties are equally correct and expanded the scope of what
>> they were paying attention to so as to dissolve any apparent contradictions.
>> 
>> All i know about this situation I’ve learned from this thread, but, for
>> example…
>> Justin reviewed this release candidate and found a lot of files that
>> appear to not adhere to normal apache standards for license headers.
>> Apparently this has been discussed extensively in the past, including with
>> Justin, but for this review apparently he wasn’t appreciating that context.
>> Project members think these files are just fine for various reasons,
>> apparently documented in Jira and the mailing lists.
>> If I put myself in Justin’s place, I think, perhaps,…. I’d like to review
>> this release candidate, perhaps as an introduction to getting more involved
>> in the project…. hmmm this is odd, this appears to violate what I expect
>> for what appears to be source code even it’s for tests…. what’s going on?
>> If I put myself in a long-time project member’s place, I think,…. we’ve
>> dealt with all these licensing issues, it’s right there in lira, let’s try
>> a relasse….
>> From my own point of view, I think it would be nice to be able to review a
>> release candidate without being a long-term project member with extensive
>> historical knowledge. Perhaps a review guide pointing out deviations from
>> what most people expect from apache projects and why they are fine would
>> help.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> David Jencks
>> 
>>> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler > >
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
 wrote:
 
> Hi,
> 
> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> - Have made several releases before.
> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to
>> fix.
> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
> 
> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still
>> have
> to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
 and
> rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in
>> the
> ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> approval.
> 
> What do other IPMC members think?
> 
 
 Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of
>> which
 you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered
>> these
 with our mentors as an example?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> +1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these
>> issues"
>>> is false, insulting, and misleading.
>>> 
>>> I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
>>> explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.
>>> 
>>> I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
>>> respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
>>> tone isn't what I want to be involved with.
>>> 
>>> Gj
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
 premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
 appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the
>> referenced
 issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one
>> this
 is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
 discussed with you Justin.
 
 Thanks
 
 Wade
>> 
>>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

+1 Thanks for these sensible words and probably what comes closest to what
you're looking for is the Rat exclusions file, i.e., these are the
deviations in terms of licensing in relation to what most people expect
from Apache projects and why things are fine despite that:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

If more or clearer descriptions are needed to the above, let us know, we're
very happy to add any and all info needed.

Gj


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:44 PM David Jencks 
wrote:

> Personally, I’d appreciate it if everyone involved in this discussion
> decided that all parties are equally correct and expanded the scope of what
> they were paying attention to so as to dissolve any apparent contradictions.
>
> All i know about this situation I’ve learned from this thread, but, for
> example…
> Justin reviewed this release candidate and found a lot of files that
> appear to not adhere to normal apache standards for license headers.
> Apparently this has been discussed extensively in the past, including with
> Justin, but for this review apparently he wasn’t appreciating that context.
> Project members think these files are just fine for various reasons,
> apparently documented in Jira and the mailing lists.
> If I put myself in Justin’s place, I think, perhaps,…. I’d like to review
> this release candidate, perhaps as an introduction to getting more involved
> in the project…. hmmm this is odd, this appears to violate what I expect
> for what appears to be source code even it’s for tests…. what’s going on?
> If I put myself in a long-time project member’s place, I think,…. we’ve
> dealt with all these licensing issues, it’s right there in lira, let’s try
> a relasse….
> From my own point of view, I think it would be nice to be able to review a
> release candidate without being a long-term project member with extensive
> historical knowledge. Perhaps a review guide pointing out deviations from
> what most people expect from apache projects and why they are fine would
> help.
>
> Thanks
> David Jencks
>
> > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> >>> - Have made several releases before.
> >>> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to
> fix.
> >>> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
> >>>
> >>> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still
> have
> >>> to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> >>> binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
> >> and
> >>> rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in
> the
> >>> ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> >>> approval.
> >>>
> >>> What do other IPMC members think?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of
> which
> >> you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered
> these
> >> with our mentors as an example?
> >
> >
> >
> > +1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these
> issues"
> > is false, insulting, and misleading.
> >
> > I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
> > explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.
> >
> > I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
> > respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
> > tone isn't what I want to be involved with.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
> >> premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
> >> appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the
> referenced
> >> issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one
> this
> >> is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
> >> discussed with you Justin.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Wade
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread David Jencks

Personally, I’d appreciate it if everyone involved in this discussion decided 
that all parties are equally correct and expanded the scope of what they were 
paying attention to so as to dissolve any apparent contradictions.

All i know about this situation I’ve learned from this thread, but, for example…
Justin reviewed this release candidate and found a lot of files that appear to 
not adhere to normal apache standards for license headers.  Apparently this has 
been discussed extensively in the past, including with Justin, but for this 
review apparently he wasn’t appreciating that context.
Project members think these files are just fine for various reasons, apparently 
documented in Jira and the mailing lists.
If I put myself in Justin’s place, I think, perhaps,…. I’d like to review this 
release candidate, perhaps as an introduction to getting more involved in the 
project…. hmmm this is odd, this appears to violate what I expect for what 
appears to be source code even it’s for tests…. what’s going on?
If I put myself in a long-time project member’s place, I think,…. we’ve dealt 
with all these licensing issues, it’s right there in lira, let’s try a relasse….
From my own point of view, I think it would be nice to be able to review a 
release candidate without being a long-term project member with extensive 
historical knowledge. Perhaps a review guide pointing out deviations from what 
most people expect from apache projects and why they are fine would help.

Thanks
David Jencks

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler  >
> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
>>> - Have made several releases before.
>>> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to fix.
>>> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
>>> 
>>> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still have
>>> to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
>>> binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
>> and
>>> rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in the
>>> ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
>>> approval.
>>> 
>>> What do other IPMC members think?
>>> 
>> 
>> Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of which
>> you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered these
>> with our mentors as an example?
> 
> 
> 
> +1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these issues"
> is false, insulting, and misleading.
> 
> I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
> explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.
> 
> I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
> respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
> tone isn't what I want to be involved with.
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
>> premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
>> appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the referenced
>> issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one this
>> is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
>> discussed with you Justin.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Wade

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler 
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> > - Have made several releases before.
> > - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to fix.
> > - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
> >
> > Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still have
> > to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> > binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
> and
> > rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in the
> > ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> > approval.
> >
> > What do other IPMC members think?
> >
>
> Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of which
> you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered these
> with our mentors as an example?



+1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these issues"
is false, insulting, and misleading.

I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.

I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
tone isn't what I want to be involved with.

Gj




> This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
> premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
> appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the referenced
> issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one this
> is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
> discussed with you Justin.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wade
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Dave Fisher

Hi -

Clearly NetBeans is an exceptional project. That’s clearly the case from their 
676 releases on dist.a.o. Most all of these are NBM binaries.

See https://incubator.apache.org/clutch/netbeans.html

I’d like to wait for their mentors to explain the situation so that we can 
properly *facilitate* its progress towards becoming a TLP.

> On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Ross Gardler  wrote:
> 
> Opinions were asked for. I gave mine.
> 
> I have tried to do it before and been squashed repeatedly because my opinion 
> is not broadly supported. I should not have said board must as it has been 
> brought here recently and did not find support.
> 
> I don't a agree that the proposal for the IPMC to be facilitators rather than 
> gatekeepers is a suggestion. It's what the IPMC was set up to be. It's not 
> what it is, but it's what it was intended to be (and was for quite some time).

What can we do to get back to that?

I’ve rebuilt the clutch process. I plan to discuss next steps in that and the 
topic will be status record keeping.

> 
> Your are right to call me or on do it or get out, if I choose to champion or 
> mentor another project here I will do it within that project. That is, as a 
> mentor /champion I will ensure the project did not need the IPMC to vote and 
> this this whole discussion would not be necessary, for that project.
> 
> My actions will match my recommendations.
> 
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> 
> 
> From: Myrle Krantz
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 3:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:11 AM Ross Gardler  wrote:
>> 
>> As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@.
>> Essentially votes don't need to be from IPMC members.
>> 
> 
> Hey Ross,
> 
> A.) That was a suggestion and not a statement about how the incubator
> currently operates.  If you want to change the way the incubator currently
> operates, please put it up for discussion.  Preferably on a public list.
> B.) While the person you're replying to can see Roy's suggestion, not
> everyone on this list can.  Not even all of the IPMC members can in fact.
> If you want to make a suggestion to the way we work in the incubator,
> please include both the suggested change AND the arguments where they can
> be seen by the IPMC.  Who the idea or the arguments are originally from
> isn't directly relevant to the merits of the proposal, but in general I
> wouldn't appeal to Roy's authority here, since he hasn't, to my knowledge,
> given permission to put his words in public.

I thought Roy did, but my recollection could be wrong.

Way!

Regards,
Dave

> 
> Best Regards,
> Myrle
> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> - Have made several releases before.
> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to fix.
> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
>
> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still have
> to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat and
> rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in the
> ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> approval.
>
> What do other IPMC members think?
>

Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of which
you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered these
with our mentors as an example? This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the referenced
issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one this
is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
discussed with you Justin.

Thanks

Wade

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 13:03 Ross Gardler  wrote:

> Opinions were asked for. I gave mine.
>
> I have tried to do it before and been squashed repeatedly because my
> opinion is not broadly supported. I should not have said board must as it
> has been brought here recently and did not find support.
>

I appreciate your input on this thread very much and thanks.

Wade

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Ross Gardler

Opinions were asked for. I gave mine.

I have tried to do it before and been squashed repeatedly because my opinion is 
not broadly supported. I should not have said board must as it has been brought 
here recently and did not find support.

I don't a agree that the proposal for the IPMC to be facilitators rather than 
gatekeepers is a suggestion. It's what the IPMC was set up to be. It's not what 
it is, but it's what it was intended to be (and was for quite some time).

Your are right to call me or on do it or get out, if I choose to champion or 
mentor another project here I will do it within that project. That is, as a 
mentor /champion I will ensure the project did not need the IPMC to vote and 
this this whole discussion would not be necessary, for that project.

My actions will match my recommendations.

Get Outlook for Android

From: Myrle Krantz
Sent: Saturday, March 30, 3:00 AM
Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues
To: general@incubator.apache.org

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:11 AM Ross Gardler  wrote:

> As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@.
> Essentially votes don't need to be from IPMC members.
>

Hey Ross,

A.) That was a suggestion and not a statement about how the incubator
currently operates.  If you want to change the way the incubator currently
operates, please put it up for discussion.  Preferably on a public list.
B.) While the person you're replying to can see Roy's suggestion, not
everyone on this list can.  Not even all of the IPMC members can in fact.
If you want to make a suggestion to the way we work in the incubator,
please include both the suggested change AND the arguments where they can
be seen by the IPMC.  Who the idea or the arguments are originally from
isn't directly relevant to the merits of the proposal, but in general I
wouldn't appeal to Roy's authority here, since he hasn't, to my knowledge,
given permission to put his words in public.

Best Regards,
Myrle

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

And here is the list of items specifically how we dealt with each from
Justin's previous list of comments with the +1 from the 10.0 IPMC vote
thread, in other words, we have taken his issues and concerns seriously and
discussed them and dealt with them:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/10.0-vc5

How much better a citizen of the Apache Way can one be than we have been in
responding and dealing with licensing concerns of all shapes and sizes.

Gj


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:46 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I’m fine with retreating and getting the work done that needs to be done.
> However, before retreating we need to know exactly and specifically what we
> are agreed on that we are going to do. E.g., we are not going to license
> heaps of files that are data and that Apache explicitly for that reason
> allows us to keep unlicensed.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 13:33, Laszlo Kishalmi 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Justin, for the really in-depth analysis!
>>
>> I'm traveling right now with very limited internet access.
>>
>> I think, regarding that we are about to graduate soon, we need to
>> address these concerns. Retreat, and get that work done.
>>
>> I'm going to call off the vote.
>>
>> A prompt action plan:
>>
>> 1. We need to include another build step, for creating those binaries
>> form some kind of source.
>>
>> 2. The crafted parser/compiler/code completion test data shall be left
>> as it is, I do not know better solution than add their license as we do
>> with images in license-info.xml. We have many of tests placing the
>> cursor directly at a place of these input files then test an IDE action
>> (that's just an example)
>>
>> 3. I think we need further guidance what to do with 3rd party licenses
>> which are refering to libraries which are not present in the source
>> distribution but pulled in build time. We obviously need to include
>> those into the convenience binaries.
>>
>> Laszlo Kishalmi
>>
>> On 3/29/19 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Sorry but I’m -1 as there is binary code in the source release and
>> possible copyright issues and there are a number of other issues as well.
>> Most of these issues have been brought up before on previous releases and
>> have not been addressed e.g. [3] While each incubating release doesn’t need
>> to be perfect, issues found, particularly serious ones, do need to be
>> fixed. I suggest you speak to your mentors on how to correct this issues.
>> >
>> > I will not however that my -1 vote is not a veto, and you can still
>> release the software if you get 3 +1 IPMC votes and more +1’s than -1’s.
>> >
>> > I checked:
>> > - incubating in name
>> > - DISCLAIMER exists
>> > - LICENSE and NOTICE need more work (see below)
>> > - There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF
>> headers, Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php
>> files that are missing the ASF headers.
>> > - Compiled code is included in the source release  (see below)
>> > - I didn’t try to compile
>> >
>> > Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an
>> ASF release should not include this:
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm
>> >
>> > There are a number of other suspicious binary files as well, include
>> one mentioned in [3].
>> >
>> > I think there some more work to do on licensing here, and these will be
>> needed to be fixed in a later

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

We need to have clarity on what exactly we need to work on in relation to
licensing -- we are definitely not going to license data files because (a)
Apache does not require it and (2) it would break our tests, which is why
Apache does not require it. That's the bulk of the issues raised by Justin.
We need to have clarity from him, at least, about what we actually need to
achieve otherwise there's no point trying to do another vote which will
fail again for the same questionable reasons.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:58 PM Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> It seems we need to have some heavy lifting on the licensing side, so I'm
> canceling this vote.
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
> Volunteer Release Manager of Apache NetBeans 11.0
>
>

Re: FYI, saved the current wiki.apache.org/incubator content to svn

2019-03-30 Thread sebb

On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 10:58, sebb  wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:47 AM sebb  wrote:
> > > ...I've committed an example page to show the difference:
> > > QpidProposal_body.html ...
> >
> > Looks easy enough to parse, saving all pages like that would be great
> > IMO, thanks!
>
> OK, that can be left for later.
>
> I've added the raw text files.

The raw files referenced a few attachments that have been downloaded as well.
These were put in subdirectories named after the page.
The links in the html versions of the page use a URL of the form:

/incubator/?action=AttachFile=view=

These could be adjusted if necessary.

> > -Bertrand
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

2019-03-30 Thread Laszlo Kishalmi


Dear all,

It seems we need to have some heavy lifting on the licensing side, so I'm 
canceling this vote.

Laszlo Kishalmi
Volunteer Release Manager of Apache NetBeans 11.0

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

I’m fine with retreating and getting the work done that needs to be done.
However, before retreating we need to know exactly and specifically what we
are agreed on that we are going to do. E.g., we are not going to license
heaps of files that are data and that Apache explicitly for that reason
allows us to keep unlicensed.

Gj


On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 13:33, Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Thank you Justin, for the really in-depth analysis!
>
> I'm traveling right now with very limited internet access.
>
> I think, regarding that we are about to graduate soon, we need to
> address these concerns. Retreat, and get that work done.
>
> I'm going to call off the vote.
>
> A prompt action plan:
>
> 1. We need to include another build step, for creating those binaries
> form some kind of source.
>
> 2. The crafted parser/compiler/code completion test data shall be left
> as it is, I do not know better solution than add their license as we do
> with images in license-info.xml. We have many of tests placing the
> cursor directly at a place of these input files then test an IDE action
> (that's just an example)
>
> 3. I think we need further guidance what to do with 3rd party licenses
> which are refering to libraries which are not present in the source
> distribution but pulled in build time. We obviously need to include
> those into the convenience binaries.
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
>
> On 3/29/19 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry but I’m -1 as there is binary code in the source release and
> possible copyright issues and there are a number of other issues as well.
> Most of these issues have been brought up before on previous releases and
> have not been addressed e.g. [3] While each incubating release doesn’t need
> to be perfect, issues found, particularly serious ones, do need to be
> fixed. I suggest you speak to your mentors on how to correct this issues.
> >
> > I will not however that my -1 vote is not a veto, and you can still
> release the software if you get 3 +1 IPMC votes and more +1’s than -1’s.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - incubating in name
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE need more work (see below)
> > - There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF
> headers, Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php
> files that are missing the ASF headers.
> > - Compiled code is included in the source release  (see below)
> > - I didn’t try to compile
> >
> > Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an
> ASF release should not include this:
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm
> >
> > There are a number of other suspicious binary files as well, include one
> mentioned in [3].
> >
> > I think there some more work to do on licensing here, and these will be
> needed to be fixed in a later release:
> > - You are not compiling with the terms of the licenses of the software
> you have bundled. Most licenses need for you to include the full text of
> the license and not just list it license. This is an issue with most of the
> dtd files, note that some licenses include a copyright line so a single
> copy of that type of license is not enough.
> > - As well as listing  the 3rd party files it would be to also see the
> product and version number included.
> > - As it is currently structured it’s not easily possible to check if you
> are including all of the needed licenses in LICENSES as you are also
> including the text of licenses of things that are not bundled

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

2019-03-30 Thread Laszlo Kishalmi

Thank you Justin, for the really in-depth analysis!

I'm traveling right now with very limited internet access.

I think, regarding that we are about to graduate soon, we need to
address these concerns. Retreat, and get that work done.

I'm going to call off the vote.

A prompt action plan:

1. We need to include another build step, for creating those binaries
form some kind of source.

2. The crafted parser/compiler/code completion test data shall be left
as it is, I do not know better solution than add their license as we do
with images in license-info.xml. We have many of tests placing the
cursor directly at a place of these input files then test an IDE action
(that's just an example)

3. I think we need further guidance what to do with 3rd party licenses
which are refering to libraries which are not present in the source
distribution but pulled in build time. We obviously need to include
those into the convenience binaries.

Laszlo Kishalmi

On 3/29/19 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:

Hi,

Sorry but I’m -1 as there is binary code in the source release and possible
copyright issues and there are a number of other issues as well. Most of these
issues have been brought up before on previous releases and have not been
addressed e.g. [3] While each incubating release doesn’t need to be perfect,
issues found, particularly serious ones, do need to be fixed. I suggest you
speak to your mentors on how to correct this issues.

I will not however that my -1 vote is not a veto, and you can still release the
software if you get 3 +1 IPMC votes and more +1’s than -1’s.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE need more work (see below)
- There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF headers,
Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php files that are
missing the ASF headers.
- Compiled code is included in the source release (see below)
- I didn’t try to compile

Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an ASF
release should not include this:
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
B
./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm

There are a number of other suspicious binary files as well, include one
mentioned in [3].

I think there some more work to do on licensing here, and these will be needed
to be fixed in a later release:
- You are not compiling with the terms of the licenses of the software you have
bundled. Most licenses need for you to include the full text of the license and
not just list it license. This is an issue with most of the dtd files, note
that some licenses include a copyright line so a single copy of that type of
license is not enough.
- As well as listing the 3rd party files it would be to also see the product
and version number included.
- As it is currently structured it’s not easily possible to check if you are
including all of the needed licenses in LICENSES as you are also including the
text of licenses of things that are not bundled but are dependancies, so I’m
been unable to check if LICENSE and NOTICE are correct.
- A spot check show that things are bundled but not mentioned in LICENSE as
they need to be, for example [1][2]. I would expect there to be others.
- It also look like you are including image file that you do not have
permission to distribute

Give all of the above this release is almost impossible to check if it in
compliance with ASF release, distribution or legal policies and some
improvement need to be made so that it can be.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] release Apache OpenWhisk Package Alarm, Package Cloudant, and Package Kafka 2.0.0 (incubating)

2019-03-30 Thread Sobkowiak Krzysztof


+1

Best regards

Krzysztof


On 30.03.2019 03:12, Justin Mclean wrote:

Hi,

+1 binding

I checked (in all 3 artefacts)
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes match
- LICENSE and NOTICE files good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- ASF source files do not have the correct ASF header
- No unexpected binary files in source release
- Can compile from source

The source files (mainly .js and .sh files) don’t have the correct ASF header 
please fix for the next release. If you’re not sure what to do here please ask 
your mentors.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


--
Krzysztof Sobkowiak

JEE & OSS Architect, Integration Architect
Apache Software Foundation Member (http://apache.org/)
Apache ServiceMix Committer & PMC Member (http://servicemix.apache.org/)
Apache Incubator PMC Member (https://incubator.apache.org/)
Senior Solution Architect @ Capgemini SSC 
(http://www.capgeminisoftware.pl/)

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Sure, but this image thing is trivial, we should simply remove those and we
don’t care about the sample that contains them anyway. Also, again, note
that we had not ignored or dismissed your comments from the previous
release.

So, to your question whether we have a Rat report, we do have one as
pointed out in my response, as well as in the initial vote thread where
that was very explicitly stated and linked. We also have an exclusions
file, which I have pointed to explicitly and which is the same as when you
looked at it in the previous release, with items agreed upon over previous
releases.

It seems that the majority if not all items you have raised are files in
the ‘data’ category which we have excluded via Rat, an accepted approach in
accordance with Apache guidelines.

Now, what specific items remain blocking the release? Note we are as always
trying to do everything as best we can, following all requirements to the
best of our abilities, doing all we can to comply, acting in good faith,
and simply asking you to weigh up these considerations with all due respect
and hoping you will be explicit on, bearing the above in mind, which are
the true blockers from your point of view.

Thanks again,

Gj

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 10:48, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
> > previous release, e.g.:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820
> >
> > But if you disagree with the above, no prob, we can simply delete those
> > images or replace them with something or remove the whole sample -- it
> uses
> > outdated code anyway.
>
> If you want to keep them I suggest you ask on legal discuss and when doing
> so, point them to this web site [1]. Just becomes they were in the donation
> don’t mean that they don’t have IP issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> 1. https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/10542-kitten-and-rabbit
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Myrle Krantz

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:11 AM Ross Gardler  wrote:

> As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@.
> Essentially votes don't need to be from IPMC members.
>

Hey Ross,

A.) That was a suggestion and not a statement about how the incubator
currently operates.  If you want to change the way the incubator currently
operates, please put it up for discussion.  Preferably on a public list.
B.) While the person you're replying to can see Roy's suggestion, not
everyone on this list can.  Not even all of the IPMC members can in fact.
If you want to make a suggestion to the way we work in the incubator,
please include both the suggested change AND the arguments where they can
be seen by the IPMC.  Who the idea or the arguments are originally from
isn't directly relevant to the merits of the proposal, but in general I
wouldn't appeal to Roy's authority here, since he hasn't, to my knowledge,
given permission to put his words in public.

Best Regards,
Myrle

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

HI,

> Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
> previous release, e.g.:
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820
> 
> But if you disagree with the above, no prob, we can simply delete those
> images or replace them with something or remove the whole sample -- it uses
> outdated code anyway.

If you want to keep them I suggest you ask on legal discuss and when doing so, 
point them to this web site [1]. Just becomes they were in the donation don’t 
mean that they don’t have IP issues.

Thanks,
Justin


1. https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/10542-kitten-and-rabbit
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi Justin,

Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
previous release, e.g.:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820

But if you disagree with the above, no prob, we can simply delete those
images or replace them with something or remove the whole sample -- it uses
outdated code anyway.

Based on the above responses is there a chance you could change your vote
to 0 or +1, i.e., what would be needed for you to do that -- we do value
your vote and would of course prefer to not continue with the release while
it remains -1.

Gj

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:37 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
> previous release, e.g.:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 8:24 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> >
>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>>>
>>> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too
>>> much, that can be a common problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi Justin,

Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
previous release, e.g.:


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 8:24 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>
> Gj
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>>
>> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too much,
>> that can be a common problem.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

2019-03-30 Thread Ross Gardler

For 2, yes I'm saying exactly that. It's long been an expectation in apache 
that a -1 be accompanied by a willingness to help fix the problem. There are a 
few exceptions, such as releases. That's why I have #1 of something is not 
approved by legal and infra then a -1 reflects that. If the -1 is ticking boxes 
on a formal process then I don't see that as constructive, unless accompanied 
by a willingness to help.

Awareness is good. For none blocking items a +1 accompanied by a recorded issue 
about something that must be approved before graduation is the way to go if one 
does a check but didn't want to help fix things.

As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@. Essentially 
votes don't need to be from IPMC members.

Get Outlook for Android


From: Justin Mclean 
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 10:32:24 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

Hi,

> 1) If VP Legal or VP Infra says any of the issues are blockers then the 
> podling cannot do a release

I guess they well need to clarify that then, but AFAIK an an ex VP legal has 
said this, and VP infra has stated this for the exact issues mentioned in this 
release.

> 2) If IPMC members want to become contributors and help fix the problems with 
> pull requests,  or mentors (meaning real mentors not just folks pointing out 
> problems, then they should get started. As active members of the community 
> those individuals will have the right to vote -1 on a release.

So are you saying that IPMC members vote are only valid for +1 votes on 
podlings they are not actively involved in and their -1 votes are invalid? The 
risk I see there is IPMC votes when needed just become just a rubber stamping 
exercise.

> 3) If the podling is unable to gather three +1s among their active community 
> then they won't be able to do a release so the conversation is moot

Well in this case here that happened (they only had one binding vote) and they 
asked the IPMC to vote on it. Some podlings, for a number of reasons, are not 
going to be able to find 3 active IPMC members in their project to vote on 
every release. (Although I'm surprised in this case given who the mentors are).

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

Gj

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too much,
> that can be a common problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi,

> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt

You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too much, that 
can be a common problem.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt

Gj

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 07:58, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > I assume we are taking about files like:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java
>
> Those are some of the files yes but there are a few not in test
> directories. Does the project use rat to look for issues? By my very rough
> count there are 5,000 +  source files without ASF headers, (13,000+ if you
> include the .pass files), but only two dozen files of those source file are
> out side of test directories.
>
> BTW  If this was the only issue I’d would have voted differently, although
> the question needs to be asked why this issue has been raised previously on
> this list and no response given?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

HI,

> I assume we are taking about files like:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java

Those are some of the files yes but there are a few not in test directories. 
Does the project use rat to look for issues? By my very rough count there are 
5,000 +  source files without ASF headers, (13,000+ if you include the .pass 
files), but only two dozen files of those source file are out side of test 
directories.

BTW  If this was the only issue I’d would have voted differently, although the 
question needs to be asked why this issue has been raised previously on this 
list and no response given?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

Hi,

> To be clear, this is test data; not binary dependencies. Note the names of
> those files. NetBeans has a module system, and those have nbm extensions.
> These nbms are made to test very specific things that can be wrong in
> modules. This would be like having tests for C/C++ linkers and object files
> etc where you just want to validate the linking not rebuilding object files
> for tests; rebuilding those every test run adds build time for no gain.
> Make sense, and Ok?

IMO generally not OK even if it's not a dependancy, but it is sometimes 
permissible, what have your mentors said about this?

BTW Those are not the only binary files there and I noticed a couple of jars 
and other bin files as well (see the previous feedback).

Thanks,
Justin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]