Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 2016-09-25 17:45, Ross Gardler wrote: You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one way or the other. That is not the case. What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be solid justification that a move to ASF will help the

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > >> Correct. The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes -

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 25/09/16 à 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases > contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. And this is the reason you have mentors and a champion. Follow their advices, you'll be fine (because if

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working > with VP Brand. Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >... > scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and > this will not be new for Apache in any way. > Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Greg wrote: >Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries. If you are going to cite AOo as an example, then http://templates.services.openoffice.org/ provides an example of how easily things spin out of control, when third parties take primary responsibility for distribution of

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Hi Geertjan, You have already noticed that at Apache we don’t all speak with one voice. Even those who have literally been here for years may appear to disagree on the details, while I expect most agree on the broad strokes. Kudos for taking all the advice and proposing a plan to move this

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" wrote: > > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Geertjan Wielenga wrote on 9/25/16 6:05 PM: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > >> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working >> with VP Brand. > > > Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be > existing

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sep 24, 2016 9:51 AM, "Emilian Bold" wrote: > > Which brings us to another question: > > If the commits just referenced a bugzilla ticket, do we also like to > > migrate the bugzilla content over? > > Or at least keep it browsable somewhere? > > > > I would want to keep

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

I never said comparative use. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Bertrand Delacretaz Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the > issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling. > > Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra > infra burden

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 2016-09-25 17:20, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote: and not all committers are required to commit :-) That is interesting. Can you explain more about that? What I meant to say is that at the ASF we also value and honour merit based on things

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sep 25, 2016 01:18, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example. > > A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that. The asf has a service - lists.apache.org -which does exactly

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are: If you leave someone off the list: - it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo. - that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on the list. (so don't leave off the person who can quickly

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

> > My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it > involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or > figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that > first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs > (whether those

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being > made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list... I agree with that, I guess what Roman would like to see is

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley wrote: > ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that > first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs.. Are these estimates sufficient for our infra team to give us their ok to proceed with the NetBeans

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish. Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not what we want -- instead, we

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > ...It looks to me we are ready for voting on this proposal, as soon as the > infra assessment and discussion around it has been settled as well I agree with that, and now that the infra estimation is in (in another thread on

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Thanks everyone for the feedback, we'll fix the rat for the next release. There seem to be some random test failures, we are investigating the causes. -- Gianmarco On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote: > My vote: 0 (non-binding) > > +1 tag/commit > +1

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold wrote: >... > alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have > a policy against ads, etc, etc) > We never run ads. Ever. Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the check and should be worried about these things. Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number is probably

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. Hi GeertJan, I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much contradictory

[ANNOUNCE]

Hi, The Apache SAMOA team is proud to announce the release of Apache SAMOA version 0.4.0-incubating. Apache SAMOA is a platform for mining big data streams. It provides a collection of distributed streaming algorithms for the most common data mining and machine learning tasks such as

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote: On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. Hi GeertJan, I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

I'm happy to add and have Suneel join me as mentor for Apache Streams. I can't find anything about this: Is there any formal process or voting needed before I make this so? Ate On 2016-09-23 19:51, Suneel Marthi wrote: -

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until > this > > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be > > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Hi All, I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole process, it seems rather interesting... Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but from reading this page:

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 25.09.2016 08:59, John McDonnell wrote: [...] I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the contributors actually merge in the PRs from

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare plattform and no IDE. No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds. There are plugins that are listed in

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Hi Wade, first of all, don't worry too much at this point, having discussions and trying to grasp the scope and what we get into is very normal at this point. more comments inline... On 25.09.2016 05:03, Wade Chandler wrote: [...] Do no other Apache projects have plugins or distribution

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move > of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans > is seeing. OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote: > and not all committers are required to commit :-) That is interesting. Can you explain more about that? Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Geertjan, This is a sound plan. On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:22 PM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases > contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. > > Here's what I propose:

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

John, Will try to respond in line. On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell wrote: > Hi All, > > > I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the > proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole > process, it seems rather

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

My last sentence below is too terse... I know NetBeans is a different project to AOO. I should not draw a direct comparis0on between the two projects. I hope we can avoid a long thread on how Net Beans is more attractive to developers than other end user projects. However, my more general point

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one way or the other. That is not the case. What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be solid justification that a move to ASF will help the community grow. The ASF is not a magic bullet,

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the foundation. I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could go straight to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather than a simple request for cash (see other mail). As for the numbers,

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years > ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level > by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers... The way I would deal

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Hi Daniel, On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff > notes are as follows... Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that for any "big" podling that comes

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be > solid justification that a move to ASF will help the community grow. This is the first I've heard of this. My one data point is

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list, > but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so. Absolutely agree. > And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list > you come up

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff >> notes are as follows... > > Thanks very much for this - it is useful

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is > that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs. I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans cost findings are

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John Ament said: So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers > listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding > people who used to commit to Netbeans. For the record, no one was being excluded. The original approach

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit : >... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of > one development tool over another. > > I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context So am I.

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 This is almsot a worst case calculation. I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not need 10 servers anymore. E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut down and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github. We might be able to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM Mark Struberg wrote: > +1 > > This is almsot a worst case calculation. > I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not > need 10 servers anymore. > > E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo