I understand the frustration here.
I'd suggest that with a large project like this [1], that has had many cases
where the release would appear to be in violation of standards, that the
[DISCUSS] and [VOTE] threads explicitly call out the issues, the RAT
exclusions, and a small discussion of
OK, that’s fair. And possibly an indicator that when a podling is large,
and there are many moving parts, it would be best to, when needed, assume
the podling is doing the best they can under complex circumstances, rather
than that the podling is not following guidelines, ignoring advice, etc.
Gj
One also has to see that NetBeans is an exceptionally big and complex podling!
For most other projects the existing process works really fine.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 01.04.2019 um 11:35 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga
> :
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mark Struberg
> wrote:
>
>> We have also
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mark Struberg
wrote:
> We have also previously already checked those files and also have the
> sources at hand afaict.
> So they should be perfectly fine - as they have been in older NB releases
> (where we had the question as well).
>
I think this is the
Indeed, and thanks again for jumping in and pushing the review forward!
NB is such a huge codebase that it is really hard to do a full cycle review.
So any attempt is really appreciated!
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 31.03.2019 um 10:04 schrieb Justin Mclean :
>
> Hi,
>
>> It has never been a practice
I started my review on the IPMC list but did also test-drive NB11 for a few
days because I had functional issues (quirks with missing JavaFX on Fedora).
Thus I only casted my +1 only after the vote got moved to general@a.o.
Trying to move faster in the future.
txs and LieGrue,
strub
> Am
We have also previously already checked those files and also have the sources
at hand afaict.
So they should be perfectly fine - as they have been in older NB releases
(where we had the question as well).
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 30.03.2019 um 07:23 schrieb Wade Chandler :
>
> On Fri, Mar 29,
Dear all,
By Justin's leave, I'm ignoring my previous cancel thread on this vote
and announce the results after a very eventful voting period.
I'd wished for another code drop, to address the arisen issues, though
perfection is the greatest enemy of good enough, and I'm still
traveling,
Thank you Justin!
Since I'm still, traveling with little or none internet access, I'm
going to ignore this thread and publish the result of the vote thread.
On 3/30/19 2:17 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
Hi,
I think it was a bit hasty to cancel this vote, after as I said, a -1 vote is
not a veto
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:08 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The LICENSE file has a table that maps a file to its license "key" and
> the
> > license is then stored in the (top-level) "licenses" directory (in the
> > header of the table, there is a note about that: "text is in file in
> >
Hi,
> The LICENSE file has a table that maps a file to its license "key" and the
> license is then stored in the (top-level) "licenses" directory (in the
> header of the table, there is a note about that: "text is in file in
> licenses directory"). We used to put all the licenses into the LICENSE
Hi,
> It has never been a practice or assumption in Apache NetBeans that all our
> mentors vote on all our releases. We do explicitly ask our mentors to vote
> in the podling dev list, normally at least one (in this case Ate) does,
> while at least two of the other three tend to vote in the IPMC
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:36 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>
> >
> > For the record, we have 4 mentors, two of which have voted +1 on this
> > release so far.
>
> One voted on the IPMC list (right?). I think Graig was asking why they
> didn’t vote on the podling dev list.
>
>
It has never been a
Hi,
> Would you please have a list? I tried this:
> java -jar ~/Downloads/apache-rat-0.12.jar . >rat
> cat rat | grep '== File:' | grep -e '\.java$' -e '\.jsp$' -e '\.php$' -e
> '\.js$' | grep -v 'test/unit/data' | grep -v 'test/qa-functional/data’
You might want to add .sh and .xml files to
Hi,
>> 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.
>>
>
> For the record, we have 4 mentors, two of which have voted +1 on
Hi Justin,
Some more questions on the LICENSE(/NOTICE).
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:43 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> 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
Hi Justin,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:58 AM 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
Yes, we have -- after a bit of to and fro -- now 4 IPMC votes: Craig,
Justin, Ate, and Mark.
And we have the right amount of time, i.e., 72 hours.
Let's mark the items listed by Justin as blockers for the next release (the
cat picture deletion is a PR already).
I'd say there's nothing stopping
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:05 PM Craig Russell wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
For the record, we
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
> -
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:
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
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
+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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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 --
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:
>
>
>
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,
>
> >
>
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
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:
> >
>
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
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
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 21:43 Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> 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
>
Hi Justin,
Thanks for the comments. One particular question/comment at this time:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:43 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> - 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
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
* sig ok
* LICENE ok
* NOTICE ok
* sha512 ok
* sources seem to have all the license headers
NetBeans 11 rc4 tested for 3 days now. Had a weird JavaFX module not
found issue in the beginning but that somehow resolved itself after
re-opening the projects.
+1 (IPMC binding)
LieGrue,
strub
Dear all,
As its community has been voted positively on it, the incubating Apache
NetBeans project wishes to release their 11.0 version.
PPMC Vote Thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/290786ea9eda2215a93ca18084945d655053597ca9745ecc6d555d79@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
PPMC Result
44 matches
Mail list logo
