Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks! Assumed that file was the same for all projects, will investigate
and fix.

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:38 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

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

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[John D. Ament]

Just to give a bit of a hand

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/LICENSE#L277-L285 - 
you don't need to repeat the apache license, if there's a NOTICE that needs to 
get replicated, HOWEVER, the paths to the files listed don't exist in this repo 
so its not really valid.



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

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[Geertjan Wielenga]

For the source release, in the top-level folder of incubator-netbeans, a
LICENSE and NOTICE are now present:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-57

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:27 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

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

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks, it was a small fun clean up task.

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Emilian Bold 
wrote:

> Well, that was very effective!
>
> My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing
> thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter.
>
> Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public
> Domain.
>
> Of course, everybody treats sample code as Public Domain, but that's
> another matter.
>
>
> --emi
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > OK, done, including references in various supporting files, and did a
> build
> > and run to check everything still works and resolved the issue:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Those specific files, i.e., the samples relating to the NetBeans
> Platform
> >> (FeedReader, PaintApp, OSGIDemo and maybe another one or two) should
> simply
> >> be deleted, they're old and out of date and it would simplify things
> simply
> >> not having them.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62
> >>
> >> I'm planning to delete them today.
> >>
> >> Gj
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> >> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Emilian Bold 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> ...some files in the repository (typically samples) are using
> 3-clause
> >>> (if I get that correctly) BSD license...
> >>>
> >>> If those files have been donated to Apache they can be relicensed, and
> >>> IMO they should, in order to simplify things.
> >>>
> >>> -Bertrand
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

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

[Emilian Bold]

Well, that was very effective!

My concern was that sample code should not trigger any licensing
thoughts. In that light Apache or BSD doesn't matter.

Since it's designed to be used as a starting point it should be Public Domain.

Of course, everybody treats sample code as Public Domain, but that's
another matter.


--emi


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> OK, done, including references in various supporting files, and did a build
> and run to check everything still works and resolved the issue:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62
>
> Gj
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Those specific files, i.e., the samples relating to the NetBeans Platform
>> (FeedReader, PaintApp, OSGIDemo and maybe another one or two) should simply
>> be deleted, they're old and out of date and it would simplify things simply
>> not having them.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62
>>
>> I'm planning to delete them today.
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Emilian Bold 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> ...some files in the repository (typically samples) are using 3-clause
>>> (if I get that correctly) BSD license...
>>>
>>> If those files have been donated to Apache they can be relicensed, and
>>> IMO they should, in order to simplify things.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>
>>

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, done, including references in various supporting files, and did a build
and run to check everything still works and resolved the issue:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Those specific files, i.e., the samples relating to the NetBeans Platform
> (FeedReader, PaintApp, OSGIDemo and maybe another one or two) should simply
> be deleted, they're old and out of date and it would simplify things simply
> not having them.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62
>
> I'm planning to delete them today.
>
> Gj
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Emilian Bold 
>> wrote:
>> >> ...some files in the repository (typically samples) are using 3-clause
>> (if I get that correctly) BSD license...
>>
>> If those files have been donated to Apache they can be relicensed, and
>> IMO they should, in order to simplify things.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>
>

Re: FYI, new incubator-netbeans-tools repository (was: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Excellent, thanks!

Jan, can you check the license converter into that new repo when it's there?

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Can someone create a repo for tools for Apache NetBeans, i.e.,
> > incubator-netbeans-tools? ...
>
> Should be ready soon, reporeq says: this will create
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-netbeans-tools.git,
> notifications will go to comm...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org.
>
> -Bertrand
>

FYI, new incubator-netbeans-tools repository (was: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Can someone create a repo for tools for Apache NetBeans, i.e.,
> incubator-netbeans-tools? ...

Should be ready soon, reporeq says: this will create
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-netbeans-tools.git,
notifications will go to comm...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org.

-Bertrand

Re: NetBeans has landed in Apache Git

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Can someone create a repo for tools for Apache NetBeans, i.e.,
incubator-netbeans-tools?

Also, can someone verify that the license header pattern is good? We want
to minimize as much as possible the situation where later on someone tells
us we did something wrong and need to do things all over again from
scratch, revert commits, etc etc.

Gj

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> The tool is currently a zip attached to the wiki - but the zip contains a
> git repository, so no history is lost. I just tried to create a new
> repository (incubator-netbeans-tools) using:
> https://reporeq.apache.org/
>
> but it seems I cannot create such a repository.
>
> Aside for this, any comments on the license headers pattern that could be
> replaced? More details here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> NetBeans+Transition+Process#NetBeansTransitionProcess-
> ToolforanalyzingandchangingGPL+CDDLlicenseheaders
>
> Thanks,
> Jan
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
> > > ...I've uploaded an updated version of the tool...
> >
> > You mean the tool is not in Git? I think it should, maybe using a
> > specific "tools" repository.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
>

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Those specific files, i.e., the samples relating to the NetBeans Platform
(FeedReader, PaintApp, OSGIDemo and maybe another one or two) should simply
be deleted, they're old and out of date and it would simplify things simply
not having them.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-62

I'm planning to delete them today.

Gj

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Emilian Bold 
> wrote:
> >> ...some files in the repository (typically samples) are using 3-clause
> (if I get that correctly) BSD license...
>
> If those files have been donated to Apache they can be relicensed, and
> IMO they should, in order to simplify things.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[John D. Ament]

So far, I like the discussion I'm seeing happening on list.  The feedback from 
Ate and Bertrand makes a lot of sense.

On 2017-09-20 09:38, Geertjan Wielenga  
wrote: 
> Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or someone
> who knows:
> 1. Is there any reason why we would not simply have one NOTICE and one
> LICENSE file, i.e., in the top level of incubator-netbeans. In other words,
> why and under what conditions would we want to have more than that?

For your source release, yes.  However, the NOTICE file as mentioned here 
should be kept as minimal as possible.  E.g. don't include stuff that doesn't 
belong.  Hence why its typically harder to build the NOTICE for the binaries.

Likewise, your LICENSE file should only include whats in the actual release.

> 2. Since the NOTICE and LICENSE apply to the sources only, what about the
> JARs that we're pulling in during the build and that will be part of the
> distribution? We're not storing these binaries in the repo since the repo
> is for sources only. However, where/how must these be listed and what are
> the conditions they must comply with in order to be distributed as part of
> the convenience binary?

Typically, as mentioned in the thread, for your actual JAR files the 
LICENSE/NOTICE goes into META-INF.  Assuming you're not importing any other 
third party code, then using the standard ASF LICENSE/NOTICE in your JARs is 
perfectly sufficient.  However, if you create a binary distribution (e.g. 
tarball) then that tarball should include a LICENSE and NOTICE that represents 
whats in that tarball.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gj
> 
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  > wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
> > > ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
> > > for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
> > > subset, right?...
> >
> > Ideally yes.
> >
> > Considering that binaries are not Apache releases, however, that's not
> > as important as in source releases where having a minimal NOTICE is a
> > strong requirement.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> 

Re: [GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Feel free to make pull requests, very welcome, but I think indeed before
they're accepted we need to do quite a bit of work on changing license
headers, as well as NOTICE and LICENSE files, that's the focus right now.

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Chris2011  wrote:

> Github user Chris2011 commented on the issue:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1
>
> Yes, I knew that mail. But there is no official comment about that and
> no decision made yet.
>
>
> ---
>

[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...

[junichi11]

Github user junichi11 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1
  
> So now I have to clone it again?

Perhaps, need not do it if the other file line endings are not `CRLF`. If 
you want to use this PR, you can do the following steps (I can be wrong):
1. Remove your remote branch once
2. Fix your line endings for your changes. then commit
3. To create just one commit, rebase (or git reset --soft and commit?) 
4. Push your branch again

BTW, Did you read an email[1] from Jan? Probably, you should wait a while. 

[1] 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ed2718660a4c6a961be15d5d6c9febec9fc19b5ca5fb0d81eab34f0c@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E


---

[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...

[junichi11]

Github user junichi11 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1
  
I've confirmed that your PR files have windows line endings.

Please try to check your line endings using the following plugin:
http://plugins.netbeans.org/plugin/36810/show-and-change-line-endings

The cause may be `core.autocrlf` configuration. Please try to check it:
```
git config -l
```
When you commit your changes, if line endings are not changed to `LF`, 
please try to change it to `false`.
e.g.
```
git config --global core.autocrlf false
```
Then, clone the repository again.

One Note:
If you create a new file in windows, its line ending is `CRLF` by default. 
So you have to change it.

Thanks.


---

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Two things I don't understand right now, hope mentors can advise or someone
who knows:
1. Is there any reason why we would not simply have one NOTICE and one
LICENSE file, i.e., in the top level of incubator-netbeans. In other words,
why and under what conditions would we want to have more than that?
2. Since the NOTICE and LICENSE apply to the sources only, what about the
JARs that we're pulling in during the build and that will be part of the
distribution? We're not storing these binaries in the repo since the repo
is for sources only. However, where/how must these be listed and what are
the conditions they must comply with in order to be distributed as part of
the convenience binary?

Thanks,

Gj

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
> > ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
> > for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
> > subset, right?...
>
> Ideally yes.
>
> Considering that binaries are not Apache releases, however, that's not
> as important as in source releases where having a minimal NOTICE is a
> strong requirement.
>
> -Bertrand
>

NetBeans core startup order is incorrect

[Peter Hansson]

I know everyone is busy with the transition, but if anyone does have time, I 
would love to get some feedback/brainstorming on 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-63

Basically, as far as I can tell, the startup order of the core is incorrect: 
tasks can start before the network infrastructure is initialized. This creates 
various spurious problems. I'm guessing that at least some in-explainable bug 
reports over the years may be attributed to this. It is hit and miss if it 
works or not.

This is really core of the Platform and therefore needs a bit of thought before 
jumping to fix. I don't mind working on a patch but the matter really needs 
validation/review/brainstorming so as to find best solution. As always Emilian 
is leading the way with valuable comments.

Please use the JIRA report for comments.

/Peter

Re: Error building NB

[Michael Kroll]

Hi,

the problem is also in a browser and only with this file, I will try it at
home this evening.

Thanks for help

Regards

On Mi., 20. Sep. 2017, 10:22 Tushar Joshi  wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> This looks like a problem with you network connection.  Can you check by
> directly typing that URL in your browser?
>
> with regards
> Tushar
>

Re: Error building NB

[Tushar Joshi]

Hi Michael,

This looks like a problem with you network connection.  Can you check by
directly typing that URL in your browser?

with regards
Tushar

Re: Assembling LICENSE and NOTICE

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
> ...if I understand it correctly, if a ('convenience') binary is created
> for a subset of sources, then it should contain notices only for that
> subset, right?...

Ideally yes.

Considering that binaries are not Apache releases, however, that's not
as important as in source releases where having a minimal NOTICE is a
strong requirement.

-Bertrand

[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #1: Feature/248233 - Shortcuts for document splitti...

[Chris2011]

Github user Chris2011 commented on the issue:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/1
  
So what should I do exactly here? Changing the line endings back or what? 
It was not my intention to change that of course not. But I created 3 new files 
so all of these are really new files, which didn't exist before. Only to let 
you know that.


---

Error building NB

[Michael Kroll]

Hi,

I try to build NetBeans from the source and download it from GitHub.

Now when I try to build it with ant, I become an error downloading
validator.jar.

I try to download with Chrome, same problem.

What can I do?

Regards
Michael

[image: PNG-Bild]
nb-build-error.png