Hello devs,
we decided to merge https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/5617 which
disables the squash feature on github since it caused too many problems.
Please squash your PRs locally before merge. It gives predictable
results and makes it less likely to forget squashing if it is part
Some comments inline
On 5/3/23 8:39, name name2 wrote:
Hello
Questions from PR: #5598
I need test guidance and consult the tutorials for PRs.
Google points you to
https://netbeans.apache.org/tutorials/nbm-test.html, which is not
reviewed but still mostly useful.
To test a module
Hello
Questions from PR: #5598
I need test guidance and consult the tutorials for PRs.
Also i need approve is this changes acceptable:
WsitProjectOpenedHook:
WsitPojectOpenedHook -> WsitProjectOpenedHook
ErrorUtils:
public static void processError(BmcResponse reqest, String errorMess
Thanks, Laszlo!
сб, 11 февр. 2023 г. в 15:16, Laszlo Kishalmi :
> Yes that kind of thing is a bit hard to crack and could be itchy.
>
> I'd prefer the 1st option, the 3rd could also work in some cases.
>
> So, wait till your PR gets merged. Do something else during that time.
> You can also have
Yes that kind of thing is a bit hard to crack and could be itchy.
I'd prefer the 1st option, the 3rd could also work in some cases.
So, wait till your PR gets merged. Do something else during that time.
You can also have a running branch for your second PR, which coiuld be
rebased when the
Hello!
Can you advise how to do the right thing?
I already have an open PR https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/5443 with
a fix for https://github.com/apache/netbeans/issues/5427
I also made a fix for https://github.com/apache/netbeans/issues/5375 and
want to open PR.
But the problem is that I
On 23/02/07 3:29 AM, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 17:28, Ernie Rael wrote:
Here's my understanding: squashing and force pushing to a PR branch, in
particular one that I opened, does not run into issues.
Yes, you're all good.
Note that by default, every committer has write
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 17:28, Ernie Rael wrote:
> There were some comments about squash/merge and how github/git commands
> have issues going directly to main. I got confused because I missed the
> "to main" versus "to PR branch" distinction.
Yes, sorry if I added to that confusion.
The squash
On 06.02.23 18:27, Ernie Rael wrote:
Looking for clarification on some issues that arose in a side
discussion in a PR.It comes down to this statement:
So if I get this right, a pattern is to push several commits to a
PR, then after approval, can squash locally (using mercurial in my
Looking for clarification on some issues that arose in a side discussion
in a PR.It comes down to this statement:
So if I get this right, a pattern is to push several commits to a
PR, then after approval, can squash locally (using mercurial in my
case) and force push to the PR.
There
Hi Antonio,
On 29.01.23 09:26, Antonio wrote:
Hi Michael,
Refactoring the code because of aesthetic, academic or modernization
reasons is a non-ending task in a >500KLOC codebase that will turn 27
this year. By the time we end up modernizing all the code it will then
be outdated.
Yes,
Hi Michael,
Refactoring the code because of aesthetic, academic or modernization
reasons is a non-ending task in a >500KLOC codebase that will turn 27
this year. By the time we end up modernizing all the code it will then
be outdated.
IMHO we need contributors that are conscious of the
On 27.01.23 18:04, Michael Bien wrote:
On 26.01.23 19:18, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 18:04, Michael Bien wrote:
But since so many PRs piled up by now, I would like to wait till NB
17rc3 is out, and then after that slowly start merging again. Plan
is to
let some time pass
On 26.01.23 19:18, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 18:04, Michael Bien wrote:
But since so many PRs piled up by now, I would like to wait till NB
17rc3 is out, and then after that slowly start merging again. Plan is to
let some time pass between merges so that everyone gets
em
before (depends on how many files they touch), others should be better
split up.
Thats why I would very much like that the contributors would actually
talk to us instead of front loading 10 PRs ;)
best regards,
michael
On 27.01.23 07:46, Antonio wrote:
Hi,
I'd try to take a look at t
Hi,
I'd try to take a look at them during the weekend, as time permits.
I've seen tons of "code cleanup" PRs that have very little value and are
too granular.
- Changing "new Integer(0)" with "0" in three files in a project with >
500k LOC is not worth the
On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 18:04, Michael Bien wrote:
> But since so many PRs piled up by now, I would like to wait till NB
> 17rc3 is out, and then after that slowly start merging again. Plan is to
> let some time pass between merges so that everyone gets the opportunity
> to update the
Hello devs,
we have a large amount of cleanup PRs open in various stages of
readiness (some are not even labeled yet so the wrong tests ran most
likely).
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Code+cleanup%22
I stopped integrating cleanup PRs when NB 17 got
Thanks for the answer.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 5:42 PM Laszlo Kishalmi
wrote:
> First of all, thank you for contributing to NetBeans!
>
> The PR processing speed depends on the following factors:
>
> - Has the PR requested reviewers.
>
HA .. so this is the step I missed :) So opening
Thanks
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 6:04 PM ehsavoie
wrote:
> I did a quick review.
> Cheers,
> Emmanuel
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 5:42 PM Laszlo Kishalmi >
> wrote:
>
> > First of all, thank you for contributing to NetBeans!
> >
> > The PR processing speed depends on the following factors:
> >
>
I did a quick review.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 5:42 PM Laszlo Kishalmi
wrote:
> First of all, thank you for contributing to NetBeans!
>
> The PR processing speed depends on the following factors:
>
> - Has the PR requested reviewers.
> - The value of the PR
> - The
First of all, thank you for contributing to NetBeans!
The PR processing speed depends on the following factors:
- Has the PR requested reviewers.
- The value of the PR
- The complexity of the PR
- The severity of the PR related issue.
Are your PR-s required for some kind of school
The pace of PR processing is ... demotivating :(((
Dear all,
I've started to integrate the PRs for NetBeans 16u1 (Gradle) Update.
So far only the Gradle Projects and Gradle Java Projects modules are
affected. If you feel some PR which is on master needs to be included,
please put a 16u1 label on the PR to the master. No API changes,
launcher
uch constant isn't binary incompatible! Just
source incompatible! The bitshift made the change also binary incompatible as
the previous values of the constants and the new values were different.
Interesting behavior of sigtest. I wasn't aware of it.
> Maybe in Michael's CI changes we cou
ithub.com/apache/netbeans/pull/4487 this might not have been
picked up.
Shouldn't the constant value changes have also caused test failures in
the original cleanup PR?
Maybe in Michael's CI changes we could also look at failing PRs that
touch .sig files unless they have a particular label set on them
s like something we should revert. Since it is a cleanup
> PR, reverting it should be safe.
+1
I'd also suggest to remember that cleanup PRs shall not touch API! There is no
justification in breaking API just because we want to clean our codebase.
Thank you: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/
Hi,
Am 05.04.2021 um 21:49 schrieb Eric Bresie:
Does the bump of JavaFx 16 cause any newer java dependencies (i.e. for 16
does that now mean Java 16 also is needed)?
no - OpenJFX is still build for Java 11 (there is talk about bumping
requirements, but it has not happened yet).
My manual
Does the bump of JavaFx 16 cause any newer java dependencies (i.e. for 16
does that now mean Java 16 also is needed)?
Eric Bresie
ebre...@gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:48 AM Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Am 01.04.2021 um 16:15 schrieb Neil C Smith:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at
>>>>>> into the beta. Thanks for all of your time.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Josh Juneau
> > >>>>>>>>> juneau...@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>> http://jj
t;>>>> <https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 9:24 AM Josh Juneau
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Geertjan! I am working on trying to
>> to
>> >>>>> pass
>> >>>>>>> all Travis tests:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> [NETBEANS-5216] Jakarta EE 9 Project Support
>> >>>>>>> <https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2684>
>&g
;>>>>>> Josh Juneau
> >>>>>>> juneau...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
> >>>>>>> https://www.apress.com/us/search?query=juneau
> >>>>>>> <https://www.apress.com/index.
gt;>>>> https://www.apress.com/us/search?query=juneau
>>>>>>> <https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 a
gt;>> time
>>> > for
>>> > > >> everyone needing to merge to complete their merging for Beta.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> Gj
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 20:28, Jakub Herke
&
>> > > >> > approval):
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2544
>> > > >> > https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2612
>> > > >> >
>> > &g
release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
> > according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
> > including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
> > available.
> >
> > That means that, please:
> >
&g
tbeans/pull/2612
> > > >> >
> > > >> > best regards
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Jakub
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 1:12 PM Tomáš Procházka
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
>
> >> > https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2772 which makes PHP
> > Annotation
> > >> > API public?
> > >> > > It will allow to implement support for more annotations than only
> > >> those
> > >> > in listed friend modules.
> &g
gt; It will allow to implement support for more annotations than only
> >> those
> >> > in listed friend modules.
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Tom
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 01.
t;> > > On 01. 04. 21 11:45, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>> > > > Hi all,
>> > > >
>> > > > Your brave release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith),
>> will
>> > > > according to our schedule tomorrow
gt; > > > Your brave release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
> > > > according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for
> > 12.4,
> > > > including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
> > > > av
> >
> > > Your brave release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
> > > according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for
> 12.4,
> > > including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
> > > availa
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:06, Lars Bruun-Hansen wrote:
> Thanks, Matthias, for uploading.
Thanks!
> I've just created PR-2853 which is the PR which will actually make the
> new binaries part of the NetBeans IDE distribution.
Currently seems to be a Travis failure in that, and one caused by
Thanks, Matthias, for uploading.
I've just created PR-2853 which is the PR which will actually make the
new binaries part of the NetBeans IDE distribution.
/Lars
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:14 PM Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
>
> Hi Lars,
>
> Am 01.04.2021 um 20:29 schrieb Lars Bruun-Hansen:
> > Who
Hi Lars,
Am 01.04.2021 um 20:29 schrieb Lars Bruun-Hansen:
Who can upload to OSUOSL ? (instructions on what to do are in the PR-2700)
here you are:
http://netbeans.osuosl.org/binaries/B1C1B951F79716EFFAB9BEC96A611844B038E2E2-profiler-external-binaries-ASF.zip
I've merged PR-2700 !
I'll create the follow-up PR shortly.
Who can upload to OSUOSL ? (instructions on what to do are in the PR-2700)
Btw: For the longer term I'm inclined to go with Neil .. I wasn't in
the past because I thought it would be too much voting. But for
now
/Lars
On
Hi all,
> >
> > Your brave release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
> > according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
> > including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
> > available.
> >
> > T
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 18:55, Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
> Am 01.04.2021 um 19:44 schrieb Neil C Smith:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 18:14, Bläsing, Matthias
> > wrote:
> >> we can go down the apache way of life and discuss this ad inifinitum,
> > Apache way of life means - ASF releases, ASF release
[Resend to mailinglist]
Hi,
Am 01.04.2021 um 19:44 schrieb Neil C Smith:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 18:14, Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
we can go down the apache way of life and discuss this ad inifinitum,
Apache way of life means - ASF releases, ASF release policy. The
rules change when it's no
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 18:14, Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
> we can go down the apache way of life and discuss this ad inifinitum,
Apache way of life means - ASF releases, ASF release policy. The
rules change when it's no longer a third-party binary, even if it's a
good thing it isn't.
> As
Hi,
Am 01.04.2021 um 18:51 schrieb Neil C Smith:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 16:19, Lars Bruun-Hansen wrote:
In any case, merging PR-2700 will not make the bug fix into the IDE
distribution. After merge of PR-2700 someone with permission will need
to take the ZIP artifact it produces and upload the
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 16:19, Lars Bruun-Hansen wrote:
> In any case, merging PR-2700 will not make the bug fix into the IDE
> distribution. After merge of PR-2700 someone with permission will need
> to take the ZIP artifact it produces and upload the ZIP into
>
er for your work on this!
-- Eirik
-Original Message-
From: Lars Bruun-Hansen
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 11:19 AM
To: dev@netbeans.apache.org
Subject: Profiler crash on Windows (was: [NOTICE] Last PRs for Apache NetBeans
12.4 Beta)
PR-2700 (making the Profiler work on Windows wit
gned and Neil C. Smith), will
> according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
> including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
> available.
>
> That means that, please:
>
> 1. This is a last call for PRs to be included in Bet
Hi Neil,
Am 01.04.2021 um 16:15 schrieb Neil C Smith:
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 14:58, Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
I intent to merge PR: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2849 tonight.
It bumps the JavaFX version to 16 to fix a crasher bug. If anyone wants
to object, it would be great to do
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 14:58, Bläsing, Matthias
wrote:
> I intent to merge PR: https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2849 tonight.
>
> It bumps the JavaFX version to 16 to fix a crasher bug. If anyone wants
> to object, it would be great to do so now.
I assume
release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
available.
That means that, please:
1. This is a last call for PRs to be included in Beta.
2
release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
available.
That means that, please:
1. This is a last call for PRs to be included in Beta.
2
Hi Geertjan,
There would be couple of PRs in NetBeans that can be merged only after the
nb-javac is ready for release.
The current outlook is to make the nb-javac available by around 8th April .
So can these PRs go into the feature freeze new branch that would get created
later before 16th
Hi all,
Your brave release managers (the undersigned and Neil C. Smith), will
according to our schedule tomorrow put together a Beta release for 12.4,
including a vote thread once the sources and convenience binaries are
available.
That means that, please:
1. This is a last call for PRs
The HTML Forms PR is a no brainer and excellent to have, new items, no
actual code changes, easy to approve and merge, so that’s what I did.
Gj
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021 at 17:23, Tomáš Procházka wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to ask if somebody can review two PRs I prepared.
>
> https://githu
Hi,
I'd like to ask if somebody can review two PRs I prepared.
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2739
improves code completion of HTML forms,
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2772
makes PHP Annotation API public and without it I'm unable to add new
annotations for PHPStan: https
It's fixed in 12.1. I didn't see it was ever added to the 12.1 milestone,
and I couldn't check it yesterday.
Boris
On Sun, 8 Nov 2020 at 04:23, Laszlo Kishalmi
wrote:
> If you can still reproduce NETBEANS-4365, please reopen it and give
> detailed instructions how to do it.
>
> As far as I know
If you can still reproduce NETBEANS-4365, please reopen it and give
detailed instructions how to do it.
As far as I know ith has been fixed in 12.0-u1, and 12.1 as well.
On 11/7/20 12:17 PM, Boris Heithecker wrote:
Maybe we can merge this now
Dear all,
Apache NetBeans 12.2 is shaping up nicely, we still have a few PR-s to
be reviewed, you still have about a day to file and review PR-s. No
groundbreaking changes please!
I'm going to release NetBeans 12.2-rc1 tomorrow evening (PST) That would
be available till 15th of November for
These PRs are
[1] https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2331
[NETBEANS-4718] Disallow FXML controller in default package when modular
java
[2] https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2333
[NETBEANS-4745] Include immutable objects for fxml editor identification
[1] Is a simple UI
In light of suggested process use mailing list. (I'll assume the
original was lost (or maybe too lighthearted), I'll resend and add some
supporting info). I know profiling got some lovin', but to be thorough
and practice this process...
An aside to NetCAT, while creating a maven project,
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 16:01, Ernie Rael wrote:
> I thought I had tried this in the past, but I don't think I have
> permission to do these things.
If not, that might be a sign that needs some rethink for people
without those permissions then, even if it's a request for a thread
like this one?!
On 4/15/2020 7:41 AM, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 14:27, Ernie Rael wrote:
I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
javafx profiling was rejected.
Linking to the PR would be useful! If you mean
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2068
Yep, that's
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 14:27, Ernie Rael wrote:
> I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
> javafx profiling was rejected.
Linking to the PR would be useful! If you mean
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/2068 then try adding the
release manager (Eric - ebarboni)
On 4/15/20 8:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> Was it? Would be great if it were included, maybe for the release
> candidates or a beta 4.
+1
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:27 PM Ernie Rael wrote:
>
>> I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
>> javafx profiling was
I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
javafx profiling was rejected.
-ernie
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
Was it? Would be great if it were included, maybe for the release
candidates or a beta 4.
Gj
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 3:27 PM Ernie Rael wrote:
> I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
> javafx profiling was rejected.
>
> -ernie
>
>
>
I'm inquiring because I'm surprised that a low risk PR that allows
javafx profiling was rejected.
-ernie
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
change I just pushed
(separate files). Is this expected and/or a problem. I'll delay issuing
the 2nd PR for now.
This is how PRs work. You should use a separate branch for each PR.
I was afraid of that. So they aren't in the same local build, sigh.
All the more reason to get those PRs handl
ushed
> (separate files). Is this expected and/or a problem. I'll delay issuing
> the 2nd PR for now.
>
This is how PRs work. You should use a separate branch for each PR.
Best wishes,
Neil
>
I filed a PR earlier today. I just did a push to my fork and want to
file a 2nd PR. On the web interface when I do "Compare & pull request"
it shows change from the earlier PR as well as the change I just pushed
(separate files). Is this expected and/or a problem. I'll delay issuing
the 2nd PR
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 17:32, Neil C Smith wrote:
> My inclination is to squash and merge these unless anyone has a reason
> not to before then?
I've squashed and merged two.
https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/1290 now has a merge
conflict. Seems a simple and obvious reason, but be good,
I was talking about from a UI perspective.
Gj
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 16:39, Eric Bresie wrote:
> Are you talking about a “branch” or label of some type from a git
> perspective or from a version display in the UI perspective?
>
> Eric Bresie
> ebre...@gmail.com
> > On June 22, 2019 at 1:54:56
Are you talking about a “branch” or label of some type from a git perspective
or from a version display in the UI perspective?
Eric Bresie
ebre...@gmail.com
> On June 22, 2019 at 1:54:56 PM CDT, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
> Great, makes sense.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 19:10, Neil C
Great, makes sense.
Gj
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 19:10, Neil C Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
> >
> > One thing — how can the betas and final release be distinguished from
> each
> > other? Right now we have beta-1, soon beta-2, eventually final release,
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 17:41, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
> One thing — how can the betas and final release be distinguished from each
> other? Right now we have beta-1, soon beta-2, eventually final release, but
> one day when someone reports an issue how will we know which one they’re
> using?
One thing — how can the betas and final release be distinguished from each
other? Right now we have beta-1, soon beta-2, eventually final release, but
one day when someone reports an issue how will we know which one they’re
using?
Gj
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 18:38, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
This is great!
Gj
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 18:32, Neil C Smith wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> OK, looks like we have consensus on merging these then.
>
> I will merge to master on Monday, unless someone else does before, and
> then sync everything across to release111 for our next beta.
>
> My inclination
Hi All,
OK, looks like we have consensus on merging these then.
I will merge to master on Monday, unless someone else does before, and
then sync everything across to release111 for our next beta.
My inclination is to squash and merge these unless anyone has a reason
not to before then?
Thanks
he Java EE 8
> >>>> Platform
> >>>> - Support for GlassFish 5.0.1 and GlassFish 5.1 (enhanced by adding
> >>>> separate identifiers in the sources for GlassFish 5 branch - gfv5ee8,
> >>>> rather than gfv3ee6)
> >>>> - IDE recognizes
we agreed has an open question about allowing selective
feature freeze bypass based on mailing list agreement - hence ...
I propose we allow the pending Java EE and Payara PRs to be merged to
master for the NB 11.1 release -
* Incorporating new files and code modifications for adding Java EE 8
su
gt; > > > > > Java EE 8 maven archetype)
> > > > > > - Ability to change an existing Maven Web Project to use the Java
> > EE
> > > 8
> > > > > > Platform
> > > > > > - Support for GlassFish 5.0.1 and GlassFi
ranch -
> gfv5ee8,
> > > > > rather than gfv3ee6)
> > > > > - IDE recognizes all Java EE 8 artifact versions, for example: JSF
> > 2.3
> > > > > faces-config, CDI beans.xml 2.0, web.xml 4.0
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for m
2.0, web.xml 4.0
> > > >
> > > > +1 for merging the Payara server and micro tools integration as well.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:53 AM Neil C Smith
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> &
for merging the Payara server and micro tools integration as well.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:53 AM Neil C Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > This email follows some off-list discussion with various people
> > > including Geert
> > including Geertjan and the relevant contributors. The release
> > schedule we agreed has an open question about allowing selective
> > feature freeze bypass based on mailing list agreement - hence ...
> >
> > I propose we allow the pending Java EE and Payara PRs to b
the relevant contributors. The release
> schedule we agreed has an open question about allowing selective
> feature freeze bypass based on mailing list agreement - hence ...
>
> I propose we allow the pending Java EE and Payara PRs to be merged to
> master for the NB 11.1 release -
&g
Java EE and Payara PRs to be merged to
master for the NB 11.1 release -
* Incorporating new files and code modifications for adding Java EE 8
support. https://github.com/apache/netbeans/pull/1298
* NP-20 Payara Server tools integration in Apache NetBeans IDE.
https://github.com/apache/netbeans
Hi All,
We're obviously still getting our heads around how the new release
process will work in practice, and one thing we still need to firm up
is how to handle tagging and merging PRs to master outside of the
merge windows. I'd like to propose the following for NB 11.1, to be
reviewed after
Well, I don't know if it's that strict... :-)
Gj
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 6:34 AM Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> By merging the PR I am now responsible for the code. That is how it works
> in
> Apache, right?
>
> HTML/Java API doesn't get many PRs, I was glad to found this one.
>
Hi Matthias,
I agree to this. To help others not merge the PR's by mistake, I've added
2 labels to those 3 PRs, do-not-merge and author-details-needed.
Regards
John
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 at 08:01, Matthias Bläsing
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> the first PR from an external author w
99 matches
Mail list logo
