Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Wade Chandler]

On Sep 15, 2016, at 08:15, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:
> 
> Hi Incubator PMC,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
> 
> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
> proposal to chime in.
> 


NetBeans has installers, and those installers inevitably bake in some things. 
ATM they provide both Tomcat and Glassfish. I assume that could be changed to 
TomEE or what ever, but would like to know what limits to bundling of various 
binaries there are during build time to build artifacts. Too, is it possible to 
provide an installer which bundles as part of its runtime, to run on the host 
operation system, a JRE, or is this problematic? What about an installation 
which installs a JDK for the user (combo installers)? Is there any precedence 
for this with other Apache projects? I’m not sure this matters for incubation, 
but would like to know what we’ll be able to do going forward as a community 
member who likes students and new programmer users to be able to get up and 
running quickly without having to have as many pre-requisites; this is handy 
for trainers as well.

Thanks,

Wade 


===

Wade Chandler
e: cons...@wadechandler.com



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

It really does sound like these licensing and distribution concerns can be
solved in one way or another. Also, from the NetBeans side, we're going to
do everything we can to fit into the most optimal Apache approach to
structuring our infrastructure under Apache. We want to end up in a
situation where we open everything up to transparency and clarity and
strong governance. It is something we have wanted for many years and it is
now all coming together. With the fantastic supporting messages received,
among others, from James Gosling and Simon Phipps, and a lot of enthusiasm
from the community, we're looking forward to having our proposal voted into
incubation.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler 
> wrote:
> > NetBeans has installers, and those installers inevitably bake in some
> things. ATM they provide both Tomcat and
> > Glassfish. I assume that could be changed to TomEE or what ever, but
> would like to know what limits to bundling
> > of various binaries there are during build time to build artifacts...
>
> I'm not an expert in distributing binaries from Apache projects, as
> I've not been involved in a lot of such cases - maybe someone with
> more experience can help as well.
>
> The most important thing is that Apache releases source code only, not
> binaries. The rather strict conditions of
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html apply to the source code that we
> release.
>
> Projects are welcome to also distribute "convenience binaries" which
> have softer requirements as they are not officially endorsed by the
> foundation (or something like that, dunno the exact wording).
>
> One project that I think has done a good job in distributing such
> binaries is Flex, which has a binary installer at
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html and good explanations on
> binaries at http://flex.apache.org/download-binaries.html
>
> IMO (but as I said I'm not an expert) what's important is that
>
> a) Our users can reuse the source code that we release without having
> more restrictions than the Apache License defines.
>
> b) If we distribute convenience binaries or tools that download those,
> we must do so in a responsible way, clearly informing our users of any
> licenses that are more restrictive in these binaries, and providing a
> simple and possibly automated way of checking the integrity of
> whatever our installers might download for them.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler  wrote:
> NetBeans has installers, and those installers inevitably bake in some things. 
> ATM they provide both Tomcat and
> Glassfish. I assume that could be changed to TomEE or what ever, but would 
> like to know what limits to bundling
> of various binaries there are during build time to build artifacts...

I'm not an expert in distributing binaries from Apache projects, as
I've not been involved in a lot of such cases - maybe someone with
more experience can help as well.

The most important thing is that Apache releases source code only, not
binaries. The rather strict conditions of
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html apply to the source code that we
release.

Projects are welcome to also distribute "convenience binaries" which
have softer requirements as they are not officially endorsed by the
foundation (or something like that, dunno the exact wording).

One project that I think has done a good job in distributing such
binaries is Flex, which has a binary installer at
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html and good explanations on
binaries at http://flex.apache.org/download-binaries.html

IMO (but as I said I'm not an expert) what's important is that

a) Our users can reuse the source code that we release without having
more restrictions than the Apache License defines.

b) If we distribute convenience binaries or tools that download those,
we must do so in a responsible way, clearly informing our users of any
licenses that are more restrictive in these binaries, and providing a
simple and possibly automated way of checking the integrity of
whatever our installers might download for them.

-Bertrand

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Daniel Gruno]

On 09/15/2016 02:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Incubator PMC,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
> 
> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
> proposal to chime in.
> 
> Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
> and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
> the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
> to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
> Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
> be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
> no big deal.

Seeing as no one else from that PMC chimed in, I guess I'll be the
punching bag here, Bertrand :) Count me in.

With regards,
Daniel.

> 
> I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
> of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
> discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
> that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
> think the project can address this in due time.
> 
> Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
> accepting NetBeans?
> 
> I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
> need to be discussed.
> 
> -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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi Incubator PMC,
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>
> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
> proposal to chime in.
>

Yes, please don't start a vote just yet. There's still plenty of
questions that need to be answered from an infrastructure perspective.
This is a large project with lots of moving parts potentially moving
into the ASF - 2 days really isn't enough discovery yet.

I'll note that plenty of questions from my original list that haven't
yet been answered.

But here are a few more questions:

The size of the binaries appears pretty large - what is the typical
total size of all the binaries that you release at a single time? What
are the typical download counts upon release/or bandwidth consumed. My
suspicion is that you are pretty close to OpenOffice style numbers in
terms of total size. That might cause some of our mirrors to balk at
hosting/delivering your binaries.

There appears to be 7 months before plugins.netbeans.o disappears.
That isn't a lot of time, assuming that plugins.nb.o is not going to
live at the ASF, what's the projects plans? Frankly, I worry that in 6
months this will suddenly become a huge priority and that the project
will ask the ASF to manage this. We may or may not have the resources
to do so - we don't know what this involves in terms of space or
bandwidth - and we would almost certainly expect the project to manage
the application.

Are you currently signing your binaries?

What happens in 7 months to all of the old releases? Is your community
the type that typically makes heavy use of old releases or are they
constantly upgrading? or?

What kind of release notification infrastructure do you have in place.
I know there's been a 'help bubble' in place that tells folks of new
versions in the past. Does that still exist. How is that notification
authenticated? Are you planning on transferring all of that? If not,
what happens to all of the old versions that no longer get alerts?

Daniel: Since you volunteered for this, do you mind doing some
one-on-one discovery with some of the project folks about their
infrastructure, whats going to move, what isn't? What parts are
crucial to the entire platform working, etc.? Then bring your findings
back to the list?

--David

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Stian Soiland-Reyes]

Very glad to see this proposal!

On 13 Sep 2016 8:40 a.m., "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache NetBeans, a
> development environment, tooling platform, and application framework.

> == Source and IP Submission Plan ==
>
> NetBeans is dual licensed, CDDL + GPL v2 with Classpath Exception.
> Upon entering Apache, the NetBeans license will be migrated to the
> current Apache License.

What is the current IP status for changing the license?

Have all outside contributions over the years signed CLAs or similar?

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, the timing is quite good, given what's happening with Kenai. I imagine
that everything will transfer from NetBeans to Apache in stages, as
outlined near the start/middle of this thread. Indeed, plugins.netbeans.org
would be one of the last things to migrate, though many solutions are
imaginable, e.g., if not at Apache, then one of the organizations providing
individual contributors to NetBeans Apache might volunteer to host them,
for example. Or a university or school where NetBeans is used could
volunteer. In an absolutely worst case scenario, though still doable, every
author of a plugin would host that plugin themselves and we'd simply
aggregate all the update centers (i.e., these are simply XML files pointing
to the plugin binaries) from Apache. Even that is doable, though not ideal.
So solutions aplenty.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-15 14:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator PMC,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>>>
>>
>> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
>> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
>> proposal to chime in.
>>
>> Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
>> and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
>> the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
>> to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
>> Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
>> be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
>> no big deal.
>>
>> I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
>> of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
>> discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
>> that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
>> think the project can address this in due time.
>>
>
> One potential caveat is that plugins.netbeans.org, which is currently
> hosted by Oracle, will have to remain active as is, at least for the time
> being.
> But the transfer of the netbeans.org domain to the ASF also is part of
> the proposal.
> So, how will that work, and can (and will) Oracle remain hosting and
> managing it while the domain ownership has moved to Apache?
> Or maybe the domain transfer needs to be postponed, for this one reason?
>
> Furthermore, AFAICT all of the netbeans.org portal is hosted/running on
> Kenai.
> And Kenai is slated to be shutdown by Oracle next year April.
> So one way or the other, we (Apache, NetBeans project) will need to think
> of how to play this out.
>
>
>
>> Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
>> accepting NetBeans?
>>
>> I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
>> need to be discussed.
>>
>> -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
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, I think this is outside the scope of this discussion. The WHY is
defined clearly: netbeans.org/community/apache-incubator.html

Feel free to drop me a mail off-thread about this.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Mitch Claborn  wrote:

> I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF, etc,
> so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
>
> I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans to
> the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per day
> in my normal job.
>
> My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving will
> make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar move
> and experienced higher quality as a result?
>
>
> Mitch
>
>
> On 09/15/2016 07:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator PMC,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>>>
>>
>> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
>> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
>> proposal to chime in.
>>
>> Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
>> and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
>> the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
>> to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
>> Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
>> be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
>> no big deal.
>>
>> I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
>> of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
>> discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
>> that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
>> think the project can address this in due time.
>>
>> Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
>> accepting NetBeans?
>>
>> I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
>> need to be discussed.
>>
>> -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
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Ate Douma]

On 2016-09-15 14:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

Hi Incubator PMC,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:

... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...


At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
proposal to chime in.

Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
no big deal.

I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
think the project can address this in due time.


One potential caveat is that plugins.netbeans.org, which is currently hosted by 
Oracle, will have to remain active as is, at least for the time being.

But the transfer of the netbeans.org domain to the ASF also is part of the 
proposal.
So, how will that work, and can (and will) Oracle remain hosting and managing it 
while the domain ownership has moved to Apache?

Or maybe the domain transfer needs to be postponed, for this one reason?

Furthermore, AFAICT all of the netbeans.org portal is hosted/running on Kenai.
And Kenai is slated to be shutdown by Oracle next year April.
So one way or the other, we (Apache, NetBeans project) will need to think of how 
to play this out.




Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
accepting NetBeans?

I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
need to be discussed.

-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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Mitch Claborn]

I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF, 
etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.


I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans 
to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a 
NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per 
day in my normal job.


My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better 
product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving 
will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar 
move and experienced higher quality as a result?



Mitch

On 09/15/2016 07:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:

Hi Incubator PMC,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:

... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...


At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
proposal to chime in.

Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
no big deal.

I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
think the project can address this in due time.

Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
accepting NetBeans?

I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
need to be discussed.

-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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Mitch Claborn  wrote:
> ...I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans to
> the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY

The "why" is that the current NetBeans owner (Oracle) has expressed a
desire to move it here, from the ASF's point of view that's
sufficient.

Contrary to other similar organizations, the ASF doesn't have a
technical strategy and "only" exists to provide a good neutral space
for its projects to exist.

So we're not asking questions like "do we want an IDE" but rather "can
we provide a good space for this new project to flourish here,
considering that its owners want to move".

-Bertrand

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I think one-on-one discovery would indeed be good -- not sure how that
progresses from here, though I can put you in touch directly with the
NetBeans build engineers who will be able to provide all the missing info.
[And, again, this is precisely one big benefit of NetBeans in Apache: we
will have transparent infrastructure and processes so that we will not be
dependent on specialized knowledge of one or two people but be able to
document and externalize this kind of information.]

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:28 PM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Incubator PMC,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> >> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
> >
> > At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
> > been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
> > proposal to chime in.
> >
>
> Yes, please don't start a vote just yet. There's still plenty of
> questions that need to be answered from an infrastructure perspective.
> This is a large project with lots of moving parts potentially moving
> into the ASF - 2 days really isn't enough discovery yet.
>
> I'll note that plenty of questions from my original list that haven't
> yet been answered.
>
> But here are a few more questions:
>
> The size of the binaries appears pretty large - what is the typical
> total size of all the binaries that you release at a single time? What
> are the typical download counts upon release/or bandwidth consumed. My
> suspicion is that you are pretty close to OpenOffice style numbers in
> terms of total size. That might cause some of our mirrors to balk at
> hosting/delivering your binaries.
>
> There appears to be 7 months before plugins.netbeans.o disappears.
> That isn't a lot of time, assuming that plugins.nb.o is not going to
> live at the ASF, what's the projects plans? Frankly, I worry that in 6
> months this will suddenly become a huge priority and that the project
> will ask the ASF to manage this. We may or may not have the resources
> to do so - we don't know what this involves in terms of space or
> bandwidth - and we would almost certainly expect the project to manage
> the application.
>
> Are you currently signing your binaries?
>
> What happens in 7 months to all of the old releases? Is your community
> the type that typically makes heavy use of old releases or are they
> constantly upgrading? or?
>
> What kind of release notification infrastructure do you have in place.
> I know there's been a 'help bubble' in place that tells folks of new
> versions in the past. Does that still exist. How is that notification
> authenticated? Are you planning on transferring all of that? If not,
> what happens to all of the old versions that no longer get alerts?
>
> Daniel: Since you volunteered for this, do you mind doing some
> one-on-one discovery with some of the project folks about their
> infrastructure, whats going to move, what isn't? What parts are
> crucial to the entire platform working, etc.? Then bring your findings
> back to the list?
>
> --David
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Leonardo Loch Zanivan]

As a NetBeans community contributor and plugin maker, I'll try to clarify
some points about how plugins work on NetBeans and how they're important.

1. Plugins can either upload a binary (NBM) or just an advertisement (with
link to another site)

2. Plugins that upload a binary (NBM) can be downloaded by anyone using a
Download button on the website.

3. Plugins can be Verified by the NetBeans team members, so they appear on
Update Center from NetBeans IDE.
3.1. In order to a plugin get verified, it needs to be signed and have a
license.
3.2. After each major NetBeans release, the plugin needs to be verified
again.

As you can see, there are more than one method for distributing a plugin,
the easiest one is to upload a binary to plugin portal and directly
distribute to anyone, without need signing or add license file, it's just a
binary repository.
The owner remains the plugin maker and a default license is assigned (I
think).

AFAIK, there are more than 1000+ NetBeans plugins available, some of them
are very old, but they may work in recent versions of NetBeans (without
verification).

The thing is, the process of making a plugin or anything else available on
maven central could be tough and complex for many developers and asking for
everyone changing the plugin license is much worse.

I see the current approach of NetBeans plugins portal with good eyes, but
it could be improved of course, allowing Maven Artifacts for example (need
to check how verification will work in this case).

Anyway, it appears that plugins.netbeans.org is just a CMS and part of
netbeans.org portal, so I don't see how to move to ASF infrastructure
without bring the plugins part.

Although, I think the discussion is about the binaries and not the plugins
portal itself, binaries could be hosted anywhere with help of a third party
company.

BTW I'm a outsider (non Oracle), so I don't know nothing about
infrastructure perspective.

Regards,
Leonardo Zanivan

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM Bertrand Delacretaz 
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> >>> ...SIR03 Migration of plugin publication system, plugins.netbeans.org,
> to Apache infrastructure
> >
> > This looks to be an interesting. Are the plugins gated by license? Any
> > vetting going on? Is there a history of DMCA requests being served by
> > things uploaded to plugins.nb.o? How much bandwidth does this site
> > consume? Are their folks who can maintain this site from bare metal up
> > in the project?...
>
> The plugins.netbeans.org site says "plugins provided by community
> members and third-party companies" so I doubt Oracle has the rights to
> donate all that code to us. Sorry that we missed that during the
> proposal preparation phase.
>
> If that's correct I would suggest keeping the plugins.netbeans.org
> migration out of the incubation proposal, and letting Apache NetBeans
> handle that later. That might just be suggesting to move that code to
> GitHub and creating an alternate plugin installation mechanism that
> grabs whatever it needs there.
>
> It looks like those plugins are clearly "code associated with an
> Apache project" once NetBeans migrates to the ASF, but code that
> probably shouldn't belong to the ASF.
>
> Owners of specific plugins will still be able to donate them as well,
> separately, once Apache NetBeans is established, via our IP clearance
> mechanism, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Leonardo Loch Zanivan]

As a NetBeans community contributor and plugin maker, I'll try to clarify
some points about how plugins work on NetBeans and how they're important.

1. Plugins can either upload a binary (NBM) or just an advertisement (with
link to another site)

2. Plugins that upload a binary (NBM) can be downloaded by anyone using a
Download button on the website.

3. Plugins can be Verified by the NetBeans team members, so they appear on
Update Center from NetBeans IDE.
3.1. In order to a plugin get verified, it needs to be signed and have a
license.
3.2. After each major NetBeans release, the plugin needs to be verified
again.

As you can see, there are more than one method for distributing a plugin,
the easiest one is to upload a binary to plugin portal and directly
distribute to anyone, without need signing or add license file, it's just a
binary repository.
The owner remains the plugin maker and a default license is assigned (I
think).

AFAIK, there are more than 1000+ NetBeans plugins available, some of them
are very old, but they may work in recent versions of NetBeans (without
verification).

The thing is, the process of making a plugin or anything else available on
maven central could be tough and complex for many developers and asking for
everyone changing the plugin license is much worse.

I see the current approach of NetBeans plugins portal with good eyes, but
it could be improved of course, allowing Maven Artifacts for example (need
to check how verification will work in this case).

Anyway, it appears that plugins.netbeans.org is just a CMS and part of
netbeans.org portal, so I don't see how to move to ASF infrastructure
without bring the plugins part.

Although, I think the discussion is about the binaries and not the plugins
portal itself, binaries could be hosted anywhere with help of a third party
company.

BTW I'm a outsider (non Oracle), so I don't know nothing about
infrastructure perspective.

Regards,
Leonardo Zanivan

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
>> >>> ...SIR03 Migration of plugin publication system, plugins.netbeans.org,
>> to Apache infrastructure
>> >
>> > This looks to be an interesting. Are the plugins gated by license? Any
>> > vetting going on? Is there a history of DMCA requests being served by
>> > things uploaded to plugins.nb.o? How much bandwidth does this site
>> > consume? Are their folks who can maintain this site from bare metal up
>> > in the project?...
>>
>> The plugins.netbeans.org site says "plugins provided by community
>> members and third-party companies" so I doubt Oracle has the rights to
>> donate all that code to us. Sorry that we missed that during the
>> proposal preparation phase.
>>
>> If that's correct I would suggest keeping the plugins.netbeans.org
>> migration out of the incubation proposal, and letting Apache NetBeans
>> handle that later. That might just be suggesting to move that code to
>> GitHub and creating an alternate plugin installation mechanism that
>> grabs whatever it needs there.
>>
>> It looks like those plugins are clearly "code associated with an
>> Apache project" once NetBeans migrates to the ASF, but code that
>> probably shouldn't belong to the ASF.
>>
>> Owners of specific plugins will still be able to donate them as well,
>> separately, once Apache NetBeans is established, via our IP clearance
>> mechanism, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[John D. Ament]

Sorry for top posting (phone), but of the machines listed, are any
available to be migrated or donated to the ASF?  Or expected to be?

Mac builds is an interesting topic on this as well.

On Sep 15, 2016 6:36 PM, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer. Who
> from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
>
> Public servers:
> - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as user
> management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are inactive
> and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> provides 3rd party libraries.
> - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> projects.
> - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is the
> server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download server
> for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team control.
> We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> Akami.
> - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
> usage.
> - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
>
> Internal servers:
> - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly builds
> and release builds are run.
> - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> repositories are generated.
> - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed for
> internal users only via HTTP.
> - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
>
> Comments or follow up to the above?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
>
> > Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> > > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> > > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> > >
> > > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans
> > > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> > > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per
> > > day in my normal job.
> > >
> > > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> > > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> > > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a
> similar
> > > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
> >
> > As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
> > planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
> > Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
> >
> > Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
> > software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
> > wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
> > that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
> > actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
> > Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
> > it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).
> >
> > Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
> > product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
> > the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
> > contributors from new places to help improve the product.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > - Shane
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I'm sure the physical machines themselves will not be donated. But the
space on them might, i.e., we could decide that some of the artifacts
should stay where they are. The source code, i.e., the active Mercurial
repos, should move to Apache Git, mirrored on Apache GitHub, ideally. The
process will be i imagine as described by Mark Struberg earlier in this
thread, i.e., quoting him below:

1.) lots of legal questions, code provenance and CLA checks, IP reviews etc
> 2.) Migrating hg to git. Not a big deal actually. Just add a github repo
> for it and add the hg url. Github does it for you. Then git clone this and
> move it to our canonical GIT repos. There was also a fast-export tool over
> at Petrs git repo ages ago.
> 3.) Identify and fix core parts which we cannot get re-licensed under ALv2
> but cannot be kept due to legal questions.
> Raphael is most probably right that NetBeans and OpenOffice share similar
> aspects when it comes to the setup. NetBeans is such a big project that we
> probably should get in touch with them as well.
> 4.) Migrate the community! THAT will be some serious effort I think. Many
> people are not aware of the pros and cons of running inside a well
> structured OSS foundation. Some people initially only see the positive
> aspects, others only the negative ones. The truth is: there is no free
> lunch. If you add structure you will loose flexibility. Without structure
> otoh you will melt down quickly.
> 5.) Build releases and distribute them.
> 6.) Empower the community to be able to manage itself in the spirit of a
> true ASF project.


Gj


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:53 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Sorry for top posting (phone), but of the machines listed, are any
> available to be migrated or donated to the ASF?  Or expected to be?
>
> Mac builds is an interesting topic on this as well.
>
> On Sep 15, 2016 6:36 PM, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
> Who
> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
> >
> > Public servers:
> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
> user
> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
> inactive
> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> > provides 3rd party libraries.
> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> > projects.
> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
> the
> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
> server
> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
> control.
> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> > Akami.
> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
> > usage.
> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
> >
> > Internal servers:
> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
> builds
> > and release builds are run.
> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> > repositories are generated.
> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
> for
> > internal users only via HTTP.
> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
> >
> > Comments or follow up to the above?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> > > > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> > > > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> > > >
> > > > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving
> NetBeans
> > > > to the 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[David Nalley]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer. Who
> from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?

Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
humbed...@apache.org

In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!

--David
>
> Public servers:
> - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as user
> management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are inactive
> and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> provides 3rd party libraries.
> - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> projects.
> - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is the
> server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download server
> for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team control.
> We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> Akami.
> - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans usage.
> - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
>
> Internal servers:
> - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly builds
> and release builds are run.
> - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> repositories are generated.
> - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed for
> internal users only via HTTP.
> - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
>
> Comments or follow up to the above?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
>
>> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
>> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
>> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
>> >
>> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans
>> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
>> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per
>> > day in my normal job.
>> >
>> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
>> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
>> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar
>> > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
>>
>> As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
>> planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
>> Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
>>
>> Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
>> software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
>> wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
>> that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
>> actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
>> Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
>> it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).
>>
>> Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
>> product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
>> the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
>> contributors from new places to help improve the product.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks. Contacting him.

More info, this time statistics:

Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 8,281,256
Total Number of Files = 64927

Thanks,

Geertjan:



On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
> Who
> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
>
> Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
> humbed...@apache.org
>
> In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!
>
> --David
> >
> > Public servers:
> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
> user
> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
> inactive
> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> > provides 3rd party libraries.
> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> > projects.
> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
> the
> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
> server
> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
> control.
> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> > Akami.
> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
> usage.
> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
> >
> > Internal servers:
> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
> builds
> > and release builds are run.
> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> > repositories are generated.
> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
> for
> > internal users only via HTTP.
> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
> >
> > Comments or follow up to the above?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> >> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> >> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> >> >
> >> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving
> NetBeans
> >> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not
> a
> >> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours
> per
> >> > day in my normal job.
> >> >
> >> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> >> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> >> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a
> similar
> >> > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
> >>
> >> As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
> >> planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
> >> Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
> >>
> >> Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
> >> software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
> >> wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
> >> that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
> >> actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
> >> Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
> >> it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).
> >>
> >> Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
> >> product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
> >> the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
> >> contributors from new places to help improve the product.

[VOTE] Release of Apache Tephra-0.9.0-incubating [rc1]

[Poorna Chandra]

Hi all,

This is a call for a vote on releasing Apache Tephra 0.9.0-incubating,
release candidate 1. This is the second release of Tephra.

Apache Tephra community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tephra-dev/201609.mbox/%3CCAC9o21R4KR-e%3DmzCsefvokpQWykOXTTnWt%2BZwt0CjiZz1MsqAg%40mail.gmail.com%3E

Result thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tephra-dev/201609.mbox/%3CCAC9o21Q9RJqDAo9n_AJWKaPm9_9iM4JoOL0bK9uh2thhS5Jn1g%40mail.gmail.com%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/0.9.0-incubating-rc1/src

The tag to be voted upon is v0.9.0-incubating:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-tephra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/v0.9.0-incubating

The release hash is db235cdfa0d40d4e31bcd19ab350e9961719c79e:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-tephra.git;a=commit;h=db235cdfa0d40d4e31bcd19ab350e9961719c79e

The Nexus Staging URL:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetephra-1004

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/poorna

KEYS file available:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/KEYS

For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/0.9.0-incubating-rc1/CHANGES.txt

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Tephra 0.9.0-incubating

The vote will be open for 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Tephra 0.9.0-incubating
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,
Poorna.

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Of the 32 repos in Mercurial, not all are active. We assume we'll have
Git-style development under Apache, with pull requests. That is, however, a
different working/infrastructure style than we have had in Oracle, with
parallel integration (http://wiki.netbeans.org/HgParallelProjectIntegration).
Thus, many of the repos are only there to participate in the parallel
integration (core-main, jet-main, web-main, etc.) We don't believe it is a
requirement to migrate all of those repos, probably we won't even need
them, when we analyze the infrastructure migration in detail during
incubation. However, the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
another download area under Apache. We believe
http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/ should be enough for that.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. Contacting him.
>
> More info, this time statistics:
>
> Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 8,281,256
> Total Number of Files = 64927
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geertjan:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
>> Who
>> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
>>
>> Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
>> humbed...@apache.org
>>
>> In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!
>>
>> --David
>> >
>> > Public servers:
>> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
>> user
>> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
>> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
>> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
>> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
>> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
>> inactive
>> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
>> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
>> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
>> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
>> > provides 3rd party libraries.
>> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
>> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
>> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
>> > projects.
>> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
>> the
>> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it
>> provides
>> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
>> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
>> server
>> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
>> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
>> control.
>> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow
>> by
>> > Akami.
>> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
>> usage.
>> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
>> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
>> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for
>> bugzilla
>> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
>> >
>> > Internal servers:
>> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
>> builds
>> > and release builds are run.
>> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
>> > repositories are generated.
>> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
>> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
>> for
>> > internal users only via HTTP.
>> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
>> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
>> >
>> > Comments or follow up to the above?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Gj
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
>> >> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
>> >> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
>> >> >
>> >> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving
>> NetBeans
>> >> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm
>> not a
>> >> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours
>> per
>> >> > day in my normal job.
>> >> >
>> >> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a
>> better
>> >> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
>> >> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a
>> similar

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer. Who
from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?

Public servers:
- www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as user
management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
- hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are inactive
and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
provides 3rd party libraries.
- deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
projects.
- bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is the
server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
NetBeans Maven artifacts.
- downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download server
for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team control.
We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
Akami.
- statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans usage.
- plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
- forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
- services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.

Internal servers:
- nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly builds
and release builds are run.
- nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
repositories are generated.
- big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
- nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed for
internal users only via HTTP.
- Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.

Comments or follow up to the above?

Thanks,

Gj



On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
wrote:

> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> >
> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans
> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per
> > day in my normal job.
> >
> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar
> > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
>
> As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
> planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
> Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
>
> Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
> software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
> wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
> that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
> actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
> Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
> it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).
>
> Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
> product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
> the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
> contributors from new places to help improve the product.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> - Shane
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Wade Chandler]

I don't personally have any products using the name necessarily. I do have
a plugin that uses the word NetBeans as part of its name, but it is only
used in NetBeans, and freely available in the portal, but is the only one,
and could be renamed if plugins also have this restriction; may impact
others worse.

We do have a serious user group called "The NetBeans Dream Team", which
works as commiters, user support, evangelists, etc, to promote the project,
and is not an Oracle thing. What about the use in that sense of user
community names? Too, there are other groups who do things with logos. We
print off our own personal T-shirts and things too; not for profit but use.
Are any of these type actions restricted as well or anything we should be
concerned about?

Also, the branding is "NetBeans" versus "Netbeans" just to be sure.

Thanks, and I will review the info,

Wade

On Sep 14, 2016 3:17 PM, "Mark Struberg"  wrote:

> Good point:
>
> The ASF (actually the single PMCs of the ASF) do handle trademark rules
> pretty strictly:
>
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
>
>
> The main reason is that we
>
> a.) need to defend the marks, otherwise they vanish and could be (ab-)used
> by anyone
> b.) as a non-for-profit organisation we must act for the public good, and
> must not allow a single company to have any advantage over others. If we
> don't act accordingly we might loose our 501(c) status.
>
> The same is btw true for other non-for-profit OSS foundations, even if
> they don't realise it (and then get beaten up by IRS).
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, 14 September 2016, 20:40, Roman Shaposhnik <
> ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Wade Chandler
> >  wrote:
> >>  Do you mean from the stand point of it being a Java based application,
> or
> > that some how
> >>  NetBeans and the Java TCK are related? I don’t think either is an
> impact on
> > NetBeans IMHO;
> >>  not any more than it is for the Eclipse IDE or IntelliJ. Do you mean
> > because it is being contributed
> >>  by Oracle perhaps? If so, does the donor have as much impact on
> > contributions as that once
> >>  adopted by Apache? I may be misunderstanding what you are asking. I am
> not
> > an employee
> >>  of Oracle; just an NB contributor.
> >
> > I think the question is more along the lines of what else would be
> > required to produce a "canonical"
> > release of Apache Netbeans. If everything that is required is being
> > donated -- I think we're good.
> > IOW, the project must be self-contained and not depend on anything
> > still left behind the firewall
> > to do on-going development and most important releases. E.g. if I send
> > you a patch -- you can't
> > reject it on the grounds that some test behind Oracle's frewall I've
> > never seen failed. Stuff like
> > that.
> >
> > On a related note, I haven't seen it explicitly  mentioned in the
> > proposal, but I hope you guys do
> > realize that once this project is accepted the Netbeans brand belongs
> > to Apache. IOW, if Oracle
> > or anybody else ever want to have an independent product based on
> > Apache Netbeans they will
> > have to call it something else.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Wade Chandler]

Technically NetBeans is both an RCP, first technically, and an IDE, so it
is a library, and an application, but no, there is no separate TCK. All the
tests are in the build infrastructure you get when you clone the
repository. There are some infrastructure things which the community uses
to validate release, through community programs/processes such as NetCat,
but those are not running tests. They are more for community sign off and
manual regression testing; formalized crowd sourced testing.

Wade

On Sep 14, 2016 7:41 PM, "Greg Stein"  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > >> I think the question is more along the lines of what else would be
> > >> required to produce a "canonical"
> > >> release of Apache Netbeans. If everything that is required is being
> > >> donated -- I think we're good.
> >
> > Indeed - and remember, I'm not a regular NetBeans user.  But when I
> > google "NetBeans", I see lots of links of bundled JDK downloads and
> > various plugins that do all sorts of cool Java stuff.  My question is:
> > does producing a fully working core NetBeans require running any TCKs?
> >
>
> It's just an application. Not a library. No TCKs involved.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks a lot for the input, Leonardo! Great to have you part of the future
Apache NetBeans community. :-)

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Leonardo Loch Zanivan 
wrote:

> As a NetBeans community contributor and plugin maker, I'll try to clarify
> some points about how plugins work on NetBeans and how they're important.
>
> 1. Plugins can either upload a binary (NBM) or just an advertisement (with
> link to another site)
>
> 2. Plugins that upload a binary (NBM) can be downloaded by anyone using a
> Download button on the website.
>
> 3. Plugins can be Verified by the NetBeans team members, so they appear on
> Update Center from NetBeans IDE.
> 3.1. In order to a plugin get verified, it needs to be signed and have a
> license.
> 3.2. After each major NetBeans release, the plugin needs to be verified
> again.
>
> As you can see, there are more than one method for distributing a plugin,
> the easiest one is to upload a binary to plugin portal and directly
> distribute to anyone, without need signing or add license file, it's just a
> binary repository.
> The owner remains the plugin maker and a default license is assigned (I
> think).
>
> AFAIK, there are more than 1000+ NetBeans plugins available, some of them
> are very old, but they may work in recent versions of NetBeans (without
> verification).
>
> The thing is, the process of making a plugin or anything else available on
> maven central could be tough and complex for many developers and asking for
> everyone changing the plugin license is much worse.
>
> I see the current approach of NetBeans plugins portal with good eyes, but
> it could be improved of course, allowing Maven Artifacts for example (need
> to check how verification will work in this case).
>
> Anyway, it appears that plugins.netbeans.org is just a CMS and part of
> netbeans.org portal, so I don't see how to move to ASF infrastructure
> without bring the plugins part.
>
> Although, I think the discussion is about the binaries and not the plugins
> portal itself, binaries could be hosted anywhere with help of a third party
> company.
>
> BTW I'm a outsider (non Oracle), so I don't know nothing about
> infrastructure perspective.
>
> Regards,
> Leonardo Zanivan
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> >> >>> ...SIR03 Migration of plugin publication system,
> plugins.netbeans.org,
> >> to Apache infrastructure
> >> >
> >> > This looks to be an interesting. Are the plugins gated by license? Any
> >> > vetting going on? Is there a history of DMCA requests being served by
> >> > things uploaded to plugins.nb.o? How much bandwidth does this site
> >> > consume? Are their folks who can maintain this site from bare metal up
> >> > in the project?...
> >>
> >> The plugins.netbeans.org site says "plugins provided by community
> >> members and third-party companies" so I doubt Oracle has the rights to
> >> donate all that code to us. Sorry that we missed that during the
> >> proposal preparation phase.
> >>
> >> If that's correct I would suggest keeping the plugins.netbeans.org
> >> migration out of the incubation proposal, and letting Apache NetBeans
> >> handle that later. That might just be suggesting to move that code to
> >> GitHub and creating an alternate plugin installation mechanism that
> >> grabs whatever it needs there.
> >>
> >> It looks like those plugins are clearly "code associated with an
> >> Apache project" once NetBeans migrates to the ASF, but code that
> >> probably shouldn't belong to the ASF.
> >>
> >> Owners of specific plugins will still be able to donate them as well,
> >> separately, once Apache NetBeans is established, via our IP clearance
> >> mechanism, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Shane Curcuru]

Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> 
> I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans
> to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per
> day in my normal job.
> 
> My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar
> move and experienced higher quality as a result?

As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).

Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).

Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
contributors from new places to help improve the product.

Does that make sense?

- Shane


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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Shane Curcuru]

David Nalley wrote on 9/15/16 11:28 AM:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
>> Hi Incubator PMC,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>>
>> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
>> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
>> proposal to chime in.
>>
> 
> Yes, please don't start a vote just yet. There's still plenty of
> questions that need to be answered from an infrastructure perspective.
> This is a large project with lots of moving parts potentially moving
> into the ASF - 2 days really isn't enough discovery yet.

+1.  Although it's clear there's an organized proposal and the authors
are actively helping to research questions, I really expect that the
IPMC would allow a significantly longer discuss thread on such a large,
complex, and long-historied project before voting.

- Shane

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Incubator PMC,

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...

At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
proposal to chime in.

Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
no big deal.

I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
think the project can address this in due time.

Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
accepting NetBeans?

I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
need to be discussed.

-Bertrand

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi David,

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:14 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> ...While it may not be a requirement to enter incubation, I do want us to
> understand plugins.netbeans.org (and any other pieces of their
> infrastructure)...

> ...I think this is similar to Maven Central - yes, we license maven
> central to a third party and they administer the service. However, if
> the time comes that either Sonatype or the PMC kill that off, Maven
> Central can't just 'go away'...

First, as discussed I think we should remove the plan to migrate
plugins.netbeans.org from the incubation proposal - that migration
will need to happen but it doesn't really impact the core NetBeans.

As to the risks of eventually owning that service, I think Mark's
suggestion to distribute the binaries via Maven Central and hosting
just the metadata makes a lot of sense. I suppose that metadata does
not need to be real-time and could be distributed via our existing
mirror system.

As you indicate, we would anyway need to help find a solution if Maven
Central were to disappear so putting more stuff here does not make
things worse.

-Bertrand

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