Re: Video conferencing platforms for virtual meetups

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Apache OpenMeeting?

Gj

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 19:46, Mingshen Sun  wrote:

> > The foundation also has a donated license of Google workspace
> > and can give you an account on it.
>
> Thanks, Kevin. Google Workspace may be helpful, but I'm worried that
> Google Meet may not be accessible by some places.
>
> > For the several projects I am involved in, we use the Zoom sponsored
> > by my employer. Since my employer has paid subscription, we don't have
> the limit.
>
> I'm also using Zoom sponsored by my employer. I'm thinking it would be
> great to have a dedicated account (or infra) for ASF projects to
> collaborate across organizations.
>
>
> Mingshen
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 8:27 PM Kevin A. McGrail 
> wrote:
> >
> > The foundation also has a donated license of Google workspace and can
> give
> > you an account on it. With that you can use it for longer meetings. Let
> me
> > know if you'd like me to set up an account.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 23:21 Wei-Chiu Chuang  wrote:
> >
> > > A while back ago during one of the Apache board meetings, it was
> discussed
> > > that they wanted to open up the streaming platform used by ApacheCon
> for
> > > Apache projects to organize virtual events, because they pay for a
> whole
> > > year's subscription only to use for the few events (ApacheCon).
> > >
> > > Not sure what's the status now.
> > >
> > > For the several projects I am involved in, we use the Zoom sponsored
> by my
> > > employer. Since my employer has paid subscription, we don't have the
> limit.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 6:30 AM Mingshen Sun  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear community,
> > > >
> > > > I'm from the Apache Teacalve (incubating) project. We are organizing
> > > > online virtual meetups every month. Currently, we are using Zoom for
> > > > the meetups. Seems that Zoom's free plan only supports 40 minutes for
> > > > group meetings. I'm wondering if there're any recommended video
> > > > conferencing platforms or infrastructures for the Apache projects.
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Mingshen
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > 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: IP clearance related question

[Geertjan Wielenga]

This has nothing to do with the incubator, please continue all NetBeans
discussions in the open on the Apache NetBeans dev mailing list.

Gj

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 18:01, Eric Barboni  wrote:

> Hi incubator community,
>
>
>
> Skygo with Apache NetBeans hat on.
>
>
>
> I'm in a deadlock since two day trying to get answer but as incubator list
> manage ip clearance I ask here.
>
>
>
> I didn't find a clear answer for the following point:
>
>
>
> What if we accept code (iCLA clear) guessing it's ok and that later appears
> to be more like code donation?  (we may not know all github fork and
> repository )
>
>
>
> -Is it possible to do a IP Clearance process after to fix the issue?
>
>  -Should we remove code and go through IP Clearance?
>
>
>
> What the risk for project if we are permissive ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Eric "skygo"
>
>

Re: Podling expectations and some issues encountered in incubation

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Well, I think a lot of frustration with the Apache incubation process could
be avoided simply by very explicitly asking this question to a community
planning to start incubation: “Are you aware that until you complete
incubation you will not be in full control of your project, for example,
please scrap your release schedule until you complete incubation because
your release dates will not be under your control?”

Gj

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 00:46, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:

> Geertjan Wielenga wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 18:14:52 +0200:
> > Any community joining Apache should be very clear in their own minds that
> > the Incubator is there for them to get used to the Apache Way. It is not
> > there for getting releases done in the same cadence as before the
> community
> > entered the Incubator, nor does it carry the responsibility for that.
> Until
> > leaving the Incubator, a project is not in the hands of its community but
> > in those of the Incubator. There should be no confusion about that very
> > simple principle.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by your penultimate sentence.  Might you
> explain it in different words?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Podling expectations and some issues encountered in incubation

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Any community joining Apache should be very clear in their own minds that
the Incubator is there for them to get used to the Apache Way. It is not
there for getting releases done in the same cadence as before the community
entered the Incubator, nor does it carry the responsibility for that. Until
leaving the Incubator, a project is not in the hands of its community but
in those of the Incubator. There should be no confusion about that very
simple principle.

Gj


On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 18:08, Julian Hyde  wrote:

> Thanks for making this list, Justin.
>
> Next time I mentor a project, I shall probably convert the list into a
> presentation (with a few “and here’s the good news” slides at the beginning
> and end) and schedule a video meeting with a few of the initial committers,
> leaving plenty of time for questions.
>
> I encourage other mentors to do the same. After all, many of our issues
> with podlings are communication issues.
>
> Julian
>
> > On Jun 29, 2019, at 10:24 PM, Sheng Wu 
> wrote:
> >
> > You are better about polishing English words than me
> > The point is only, I received many feedback about the long release
> > procedure is unexpected.
> >
> > Justin Mclean 于2019年6月30日 周日下午1:13写道：
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> In You will need to change the way you build and distribute software
>  For instance, you now need to vote on releases over a 72 whole cycle,
> >> and also have the IPMC vote on your releases.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll update that,. BTW I wasn’t trying to
> make
> >> it comprehensive or repeat information put elsewhere as that can also
> cause
> >> problems. I think adding link to where some of that information is would
> >> also help.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >> --
> > Sheng Wu
> > SkyWalking, Shardingsphere and Zipkin
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Incubation Pain Points

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I think a big and simple thing to consider is that the difference between
success/failure in migrating to Apache TLP is one of attitude -- i.e., the
very same things that the Zipkin community considered to be immensely
frustrating were considered to be immensely frustrating to the NetBeans
community too. However, in the case of the NetBeans community we (1) didn't
have the pre-history of going it alone that Zipkin has, i.e., for Zipkin
there was always the possibility of going back to their independent status
before Apache, while for NetBeans the prior state was Oracle and NetBeans
couldn't go back, it simply needed a governance model and so if it wasn't
going to be Apache it would have been something else, which would have been
frustrating to get into as well, so we just simply persevered until we
adopted everything and accepted everything and (2) Zipkin seems to be less
cohesive than NetBeans and less interested in being cohesive, i.e.,
concerned about laying down things for subgroups that might be averse to
that, while NetBeans is a pretty holistic organism working towards very
similar end goals. So, it's as much the nature of the specifics of a
community or project as it is about the specifics of Apache, the Apache
Way, the Incubator, etc.

Gj

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:26 PM Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi Roman,
>
> All very true. What the Incubator could do better is to let people know
> the key values of The Apache Way that will impact any existing community if
> they come to the ASF through the Incubator. While it will be a community
> that comes (or doesn’t), it will more likely be a vendor than a community
> that decides to come to Apache. That will more likely be for the permissive
> licensing than for community over code.
>
> (1) The careful Apache Licensing and Release process that is not fully
> automated might be a surprise. If a project relies on frequent and quick
> releases then there will be a cultural issue as the project adapts. This
> needs to be fully considered. Projects need to discuss a more careful and
> deliberate transition between existing process and the ASF. Moving over
> repositories immediately might not be best.
>
> Yes, the IPMC can help lower the impedance for a release. I think rather
> than parallel releases we should allow projects whose communities need
> faster releases to be slower about moving repositories to Apache.
>
> (2) Community over code means global asynchronous communications with
> decisions in public based on Consensus. Consensus is often simple (Lazy),
> but is sometimes very difficult. This is the opposite from a “king” or BFDL
> (aka Linux Kernel, etc.) and it is not driven from within a “Vendor” team
> (at least not in the end.) The very foundation of the Apache Group was to
> bring back an abandoned project. An Apache project with a functioning PMC
> replaces committers from the community and supports the community of users.
> In many PMCs the original developers are long gone and some are likely in a
> fourth or fifth generation of committers.
>
> I think that the IPMC should recommend that mailing list communications be
> fully established prior to moving repositories. Rather than having the
> quickest most active developer take charge immediately we get Consensus
> from all the Initial Committers about it being time to move a repository.
> The choice of Transferring vs. Cloning needs to be clearly made.
>
> Surprises with repositories include giving up some admin rights and
> plugins in GitHub due to Apache’s management of 100s of repositories (close
> to 1000?) This will impact a project’s pipelines in unexpected ways.
>
> (3) Coming to Apache does mean there is a unique view on Foundation
> available resources. If a project wishes to Incubate with a number of extra
> resources then careful planning and possible exceptions to policies will
> need to be negotiated.
>
> I could go on, but I think we need to identify for prospective podlings
> what the main cultural points are so that they can know if they will have
> trouble.
>
> I think that the podling proposal template should be updated to be less
> verbose and more about the podling community clearly understanding what its
> going to happen and identifying what support the community will need.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:51 AM Geertjan Wielenga 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It’s not really totally OK. People leaving back to their old place
> feeling
> >> unhappy and frustrated, how is that totally OK?
> >
> > I'll stick with Christofer's analogy -- if you come to a new country
> > thinking that
> > the roads are paved with gold -- all you're going to get is
> > frust

Re: Incubation Pain Points

[Geertjan Wielenga]

It’s not really totally OK. People leaving back to their old place feeling
unhappy and frustrated, how is that totally OK? How positive is that
departing community going to be about Apache? Is that really totally OK? I
think it’s a sign that there was something wrong in the pre-incubation
discussions, certainly some misconceptions. Sure, it’s not the end of the
world to go back to the old place, but certainly not the ideal either.

Gj


On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 17:36, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:24 AM Christofer Dutz
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Geertjan,
> >
> > not quite sure how to read this ... what are you referring to as "new
> culture".
> > The existing project coming to the ASF? And this project should adopt
> the tradition of the ASF.
> > Or that the ASF should adopt the culture and tradition of the project
> joining?
> > (Probably then meant more as: Allowing them to continue than the ASF to
> change)
> >
> > I think projects coming to the ASF have to be educated prior to entering
> incubation that
> > there will almost always be things we are expecting them to change when
> they come to Apache
> > and that there's no discussion on if they have to follow them.
>
> This! Also, I think we should stop being so uptight about communities
> trying incubation
> and deciding that ASF is not for them. It is a two-ways street when it
> comes to education.
>
> > We have to make them understand that the ASF is more than a GIT repo, CI
> Server and Mailing lists.
> > That the ASF has great things to provide (Legal Shield, Marketing,
> Infra, ...) but that this only works
> > If you play along with some rules we have. Also should we explain WHY
> these rules are there.
> >
> > I would say it's sort of like emigrating to another country: You
> probably move for some reasons.
> > But also probably the rules are a little different at the country you
> are moving. There will be things
> > You will be allowed to do the same way you always did it, but there will
> be things expected of you
> > to simply follow and not ignore, because you think otherwise.
>
> And sometimes you'd return back to your old place after all -- and
> that's totally OK.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> > We have to find a way to state the rules and what we expect before
> podlings enter incubation.
> >
> > Still we will have podlings that sort of remind me of small children
> simply not willing to do something simple,
> > Just cause a parent told them to: "No, I will not say thank you".
> >
> > Or converted to our world: "No, I will not add anything to any Notice",
> or "No, I will not credit stuff I
> > obviously borrowed somewhere" ... but this way we can always refer to
> the rules being clearly
> > communicated prior to entering incubation and not have to listen to
> complaints all the time.
> >
> > And for my point of view: If there are projects, that join the ASF, but
> don't want to play according to the
> > Rules - we're off way better without them. At least I don't want to
> invest my time (which is already
> > Spread out pretty thin with all the things I do for the ASF) to deal
> with rebellious podlings.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps creating a training session as part of the training podling
> >
> > Am 13.06.19, 22:29 schrieb "Geertjan Wielenga" :
> >
> > Speaking on behalf of myself only, though note I am PMC chair of
> NetBeans,
> > which went through a protracted (nice way of saying ‘complex’)
> incubation
> > because of its size (‘very large’) and history (20+ years) — the key
> to any
> > new culture is to adopt its traditions and to fight them as little as
> > possible. And one can’t really understand the culture until one is
> in it.
> > It’s hard to really prepare — other than to admire projects like
> Maven or
> > TomEE and to want and aim to be like them, regardless of the
> contortions
> > required to get there.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:10, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > Here are some thoughts I have to improving Incubation. These are
> not
> > > really new, but I think we should discuss where and how best to
> apply these.
> > >
> > > (1) Champions need to very clear that the ASF expects Community
> decisions
> > > not BDFLs. Burnout is one factor to highlight why community is
> important.
> >

Re: Incubation Pain Points

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I agree and that’s how I see it too — coming to Apache means the assumption
that you’re wanting to adopt its culture. However, there are definitely
very frustrating aspects to that culture. The biggest fix I’d suggest for
the incubator is parallel voting — i.e., start the PPMC vote and IPMC vote
at the same time.

I cannot tell you how many times I’ve wanted to stab myself with a blunt
instrument in the eye after having to restart the PPMC vote yet again (with
less and less enthusiasm from the community and thus less voting and more
time wasting) after an IPMC vote failed yet again on some aspect that the
community is not interested in at all (but should be, but still isn’t).

Gj


On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:24, Christofer Dutz 
wrote:

> Hi Geertjan,
>
> not quite sure how to read this ... what are you referring to as "new
> culture".
> The existing project coming to the ASF? And this project should adopt the
> tradition of the ASF.
> Or that the ASF should adopt the culture and tradition of the project
> joining?
> (Probably then meant more as: Allowing them to continue than the ASF to
> change)
>
> I think projects coming to the ASF have to be educated prior to entering
> incubation that
> there will almost always be things we are expecting them to change when
> they come to Apache
> and that there's no discussion on if they have to follow them.
>
> We have to make them understand that the ASF is more than a GIT repo, CI
> Server and Mailing lists.
> That the ASF has great things to provide (Legal Shield, Marketing, Infra,
> ...) but that this only works
> If you play along with some rules we have. Also should we explain WHY
> these rules are there.
>
> I would say it's sort of like emigrating to another country: You probably
> move for some reasons.
> But also probably the rules are a little different at the country you are
> moving. There will be things
> You will be allowed to do the same way you always did it, but there will
> be things expected of you
> to simply follow and not ignore, because you think otherwise.
>
> We have to find a way to state the rules and what we expect before
> podlings enter incubation.
>
> Still we will have podlings that sort of remind me of small children
> simply not willing to do something simple,
> Just cause a parent told them to: "No, I will not say thank you".
>
> Or converted to our world: "No, I will not add anything to any Notice", or
> "No, I will not credit stuff I
> obviously borrowed somewhere" ... but this way we can always refer to the
> rules being clearly
> communicated prior to entering incubation and not have to listen to
> complaints all the time.
>
> And for my point of view: If there are projects, that join the ASF, but
> don't want to play according to the
> Rules - we're off way better without them. At least I don't want to invest
> my time (which is already
> Spread out pretty thin with all the things I do for the ASF) to deal with
> rebellious podlings.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps creating a training session as part of the training podling
>
> Am 13.06.19, 22:29 schrieb "Geertjan Wielenga" :
>
> Speaking on behalf of myself only, though note I am PMC chair of
> NetBeans,
> which went through a protracted (nice way of saying ‘complex’)
> incubation
> because of its size (‘very large’) and history (20+ years) — the key
> to any
> new culture is to adopt its traditions and to fight them as little as
> possible. And one can’t really understand the culture until one is in
> it.
> It’s hard to really prepare — other than to admire projects like Maven
> or
> TomEE and to want and aim to be like them, regardless of the
> contortions
> required to get there.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:10, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Here are some thoughts I have to improving Incubation. These are not
> > really new, but I think we should discuss where and how best to
> apply these.
> >
> > (1) Champions need to very clear that the ASF expects Community
> decisions
> > not BDFLs. Burnout is one factor to highlight why community is
> important.
> > Vendor independence is important and part of why BDFLs don’t fly. In
> the
> > last few years we have deemphasized the role of Champion and I think
> we
> > need to list out some of the duties a Champion has to both the
> prospective
> > podling community and the Incubator.
> >
> > (2) We should help existing communities plan their entry into
> Incubation
> > with their proposals. Currently TVM is moving the

Re: Incubation Pain Points

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Just as a quick follow up, I watched this YouTube recording of a session I
did last year on the NetBeans move to Apache again today and, it's been a
while since I watched it last, but I think it still really nails it in
terms of the pain/gain continuum of transitioning a project to Apache, in
all its bleakness. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnznard9Nls

Gj


On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 10:29 PM Geertjan Wielenga 
wrote:

> Speaking on behalf of myself only, though note I am PMC chair of NetBeans,
> which went through a protracted (nice way of saying ‘complex’) incubation
> because of its size (‘very large’) and history (20+ years) — the key to any
> new culture is to adopt its traditions and to fight them as little as
> possible. And one can’t really understand the culture until one is in it.
> It’s hard to really prepare — other than to admire projects like Maven or
> TomEE and to want and aim to be like them, regardless of the contortions
> required to get there.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:10, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> Here are some thoughts I have to improving Incubation. These are not
>> really new, but I think we should discuss where and how best to apply these.
>>
>> (1) Champions need to very clear that the ASF expects Community decisions
>> not BDFLs. Burnout is one factor to highlight why community is important.
>> Vendor independence is important and part of why BDFLs don’t fly. In the
>> last few years we have deemphasized the role of Champion and I think we
>> need to list out some of the duties a Champion has to both the prospective
>> podling community and the Incubator.
>>
>> (2) We should help existing communities plan their entry into Incubation
>> with their proposals. Currently TVM is moving their community over before
>> repositories. That might be a better approach for many communities as it
>> will assure that (a) the existing community keeps its current velocity and
>> (b) they are making community decisions on list before actual development
>> is moved over.
>>
>> (3) Having a lower impedance to release and code changes would really
>> help. We are already having this discussion. A very radical idea might be
>> to move a lot of the License, Notice and Dependency work away from the
>> Release Vote and instead do periodic and potentially automated audits of
>> repositories. This would follow the REVIEW suggestion, but make it more
>> automated and based on tooling.
>>
>> (4) Relinquishing control of admin rights on GitHub repos is an
>> impedance. I understand why this is done from an Apache Infrastructure
>> perspective, but it is a surprise to podling communities. Making sure that
>> a new podling knows fully what to expect before transferring repos would
>> really help manage expectations.
>>
>> (5) Failure to incubate is not failure. Currently 63 podlings have
>> retired and there are two or three additional retirements soon. 4 or 5
>> podlings moved on or back to where they were. The why of retirement could
>> be analyzed, but it would need to look into mailing list archives because
>> the information in podlings.xml is not always clear and is sometimes more
>> diplomatic than the reality.
>>
>> See https://projects.apache.org for an intriguing chart.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: Incubation Pain Points

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Speaking on behalf of myself only, though note I am PMC chair of NetBeans,
which went through a protracted (nice way of saying ‘complex’) incubation
because of its size (‘very large’) and history (20+ years) — the key to any
new culture is to adopt its traditions and to fight them as little as
possible. And one can’t really understand the culture until one is in it.
It’s hard to really prepare — other than to admire projects like Maven or
TomEE and to want and aim to be like them, regardless of the contortions
required to get there.

Gj


On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 21:10, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
>
> Here are some thoughts I have to improving Incubation. These are not
> really new, but I think we should discuss where and how best to apply these.
>
> (1) Champions need to very clear that the ASF expects Community decisions
> not BDFLs. Burnout is one factor to highlight why community is important.
> Vendor independence is important and part of why BDFLs don’t fly. In the
> last few years we have deemphasized the role of Champion and I think we
> need to list out some of the duties a Champion has to both the prospective
> podling community and the Incubator.
>
> (2) We should help existing communities plan their entry into Incubation
> with their proposals. Currently TVM is moving their community over before
> repositories. That might be a better approach for many communities as it
> will assure that (a) the existing community keeps its current velocity and
> (b) they are making community decisions on list before actual development
> is moved over.
>
> (3) Having a lower impedance to release and code changes would really
> help. We are already having this discussion. A very radical idea might be
> to move a lot of the License, Notice and Dependency work away from the
> Release Vote and instead do periodic and potentially automated audits of
> repositories. This would follow the REVIEW suggestion, but make it more
> automated and based on tooling.
>
> (4) Relinquishing control of admin rights on GitHub repos is an impedance.
> I understand why this is done from an Apache Infrastructure perspective,
> but it is a surprise to podling communities. Making sure that a new podling
> knows fully what to expect before transferring repos would really help
> manage expectations.
>
> (5) Failure to incubate is not failure. Currently 63 podlings have retired
> and there are two or three additional retirements soon. 4 or 5 podlings
> moved on or back to where they were. The why of retirement could be
> analyzed, but it would need to look into mailing list archives because the
> information in podlings.xml is not always clear and is sometimes more
> diplomatic than the reality.
>
> See https://projects.apache.org for an intriguing chart.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Zipkin (incubating) version 2.14.0

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Probably more than anyone in the world, I feel your pain. Tip: document
everything Justin identifies as a problem, focus on those items in addition
to everything you’re focusing on already, and each release will be less
painful than the one before.

Gj


On Sat, 18 May 2019 at 17:46, Adrian Cole  wrote:

> the fact people allow tools like apache RAT to rot, yet somehow can
> find glitches in dozens of repos tells me priorities are whacked.
>
> For example, the last release justin found a second header on a file
> that said it was temporary (now deleted)
>
> did he manually look at hundreds of files to see that? If not, why are
> the tools we are supposed to use hamstrung? A correct optimization is
> empowering projects to succeed on their own. RAT is a part of that.
> Why are there better tools not available? Why is a second license a
> "ISSUE" that needs to be discussed in consideration of whether a vote
> is 3+1 days or 3+3 days. The bias is towards making things problems,
> not putting them in perspective or addressing long held issues that
> make this whole thing eggshell (ex RAT)
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:33 PM Geertjan Wielenga 
> wrote:
> >
> > In defence of Justin :-) I'm very sure NetBeans would not be as solid and
> > well placed in Apache right now, outside the Incubator, without Justin's
> > uncanny ability to find glitches. :-)
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:59 PM Adrian Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > > maybe you can open source the tools you use justin.
> > >
> > > you seem uncanny ability to find glitches, yet also have an ability to
> > > ignore note in the vote request mentioning known issues.
> > >
> > > start helping instead of finding faults. you are the reason incubator
> is
> > > not something anyone wants to go through
> > >
> > > On Sat, May 18, 2019, 3:20 PM Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > But for Zipkin,  there are lots of community releases which are
> built
> > > > > on top of auto tools,  so I think it's much safer for us to start a
> > > > > parallel vote both PPMC and IPMC.
> > > >
> > > > Given all release I’ve looked at had license (or other) issues why
> do you
> > > > think that the “auto tools” are doing what is required and that
> there is
> > > a
> > > > requirement for doing this? Or why do you feel you need to get
> releases
> > > out
> > > > before they comply with ASF policy? You'll allow note that issues
> pointed
> > > > out with previous releases still occur in later releases and that’s
> > > > probably an issue you need to look into.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > > -
> > > > 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Zipkin (incubating) version 2.14.0

[Geertjan Wielenga]

In defence of Justin :-) I'm very sure NetBeans would not be as solid and
well placed in Apache right now, outside the Incubator, without Justin's
uncanny ability to find glitches. :-)

Gj

On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 4:59 PM Adrian Cole  wrote:

> maybe you can open source the tools you use justin.
>
> you seem uncanny ability to find glitches, yet also have an ability to
> ignore note in the vote request mentioning known issues.
>
> start helping instead of finding faults. you are the reason incubator is
> not something anyone wants to go through
>
> On Sat, May 18, 2019, 3:20 PM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > But for Zipkin,  there are lots of community releases which are built
> > > on top of auto tools,  so I think it's much safer for us to start a
> > > parallel vote both PPMC and IPMC.
> >
> > Given all release I’ve looked at had license (or other) issues why do you
> > think that the “auto tools” are doing what is required and that there is
> a
> > requirement for doing this? Or why do you feel you need to get releases
> out
> > before they comply with ASF policy? You'll allow note that issues pointed
> > out with previous releases still occur in later releases and that’s
> > probably an issue you need to look into.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

[RESULT] [VOTE] Recommend 'Apache NetBeans graduation to Top Level Project' resolution to board

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

Many thanks for the enthusiasm and encouragement -- the vote thread[1] has
been open for 72 hours and the vote has passed:

18 +1 votes (and no 0 or -1 votes).

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans

[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d7c5d2048f8050fa0e438c5b14ea75c60a52ef479694f79f32e86b6@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

[VOTE] Recommend 'Apache NetBeans graduation to Top Level Project' resolution to board

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans podling community brings the resolution, after
discussion[1], to become a top level Apache project up for the IPMC vote.
The PPMC community vote[2] resulted in 64 +1 votes and no 0 or -1 votes,
further details about the project and what has been done is found in the
related discussion thread[1].

We have had a long and eventful incubation period and are looking forward
to graduating and continuing our development and community work with and
around Apache NetBeans.

The vote is open for 72 hours, assuming that at that stage there are at
least 3 +1 votes and nothing left open for discussion.

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

1.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/648834cdb10ce55aff2c6c8dd3c32454a74711c6289f385e456b74d8@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
2.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/72e59c722580fef2cbaa637735691a549756aeaa72c4cbf52265fbe0@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

-

Establish the Apache NetBeans Project

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the
Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a
Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the public, related
to providing a development environment, tooling platform, and application
framework.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC),
to be known as the "Apache NetBeans Project", be and hereby is established
pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Apache NetBeans Project be and hereby is responsible for
the creation and maintenance of software related to providing a development
environment, tooling platform, and application framework; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache NetBeans" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction
of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache NetBeans Project, and
to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the
scope of responsibility of the Apache NetBeans Project; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are
appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache NetBeans Project:

* Anton Epple 
* Antonio Vieiro 
* Aristides Villarreal 
* Arunava Sinha 
* Ate Douma 
* Attila Kelemen 
* Bertrand Delacretaz 
* Bruno Flávio 
* Bruno Souza 
* Christian Lenz 
* Constantin Drabo 
* David Heffelfinger 
* Daniel Gruno 
* Dusan Balek 
* Eirik Bakke 
* Emilian Bold 
* Emmanuel Hugonnet 
* Eric Barboni 
* Florian Vogler 
* Geertjan Wielenga 
* Glenn Holmer 
* Ivar Grimstad 
* James Gosling 
* Jan Lahoda 
* Jan Pirek 
* Jaroslav Tulach 
* Jean-Marc Borer 
* Jiří Kovalský 
* Joerg Michelberger 
* Johan Vos 
* John Kostaras 
* John McDonnell 
* Josh Juneau 
* José Pereda 
* Junichi Yamamoto 
* Kirk Pepperdine 
* Lars Bruun-Hansen 
* Laszlo Kishalmi 
* Leonardo Zanivan 
* Mark Stephens 
* Mark Struberg 
* Martin Entlicher 
* Martin Klähn 
* Matthias Bläsing 
* Michael Müller 
* Michael Nascimento 
* Michel Graciano 
* Neil C Smith 
* Ralph Benjamin Ruijs 
* Reema Taneja 
* Shai Almog 
* Simon Phipps 
* Svatopluk Dedic 
* Sven Reimers 
* Thilina Ranathunga 
* Timon Veenstra 
* Tomas Mysik 
* Tomas Zezula 
* Tushar Joshi 
* Vladimir Voskresensky 
* Wade Chandler 
* Zoran Sevarac 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Geertjan Wielenga be appointed
to the office of Vice President, Apache NetBeans, to serve in accordance
with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws
of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or
disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Apache NetBeans Project be and hereby is tasked with the
migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator NetBeans podling; and
be it further

RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache Incubator
NetBeans podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter
discharged.

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, last call for thoughts small and large. If there are none, tomorrow
morning CEST the vote thread will begin.

Gh

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 11:52, Nick Kew  wrote:

>
>
> > On 8 Apr 2019, at 07:53, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >
> > It is controled by Apache.
>
> Indeed, I can see that from the infra ticket you posted this morning.
>
> I had hoped to draw comment on the broader question, which is (also)
> relevant to a podling I mentor that has an existing pre-incubation site.
>
> But this was the wrong context for that.  I apologise for the intrusion.
>
> --
> Nick Kew
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Here is where we're discussing this now (again) on the dev mailing list,
with some concrete ideas:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f7943e7e3000acd3aacb79b5ebfc874c1b0cfc80246aecb83c5b028c@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

But, I do not see this as a blocker for graduation. Unless someone corrects
me.

Gj


On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 8:53 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> It is controled by Apache.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 08:38, Nick Kew  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:22, Greg Stein  wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:14 PM Justin Mclean 
>> > wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >
>> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > -g
>>
>> OK, I'll bite.  I haven't been following this discussion, but the
>> question is one that affects other podlings too.
>>
>> I see netbeans.org carries Apache branding.  Is that OK?
>>
>> To answer that, I would want to ask who owns and controls it.
>> Especially the control question.  If the control is not Apache -
>> if the site contents are managed by a community that differs
>> from the Apache community (maybe a subset of the project
>> committers, or - far worse - a contributing *company*) -
>> that would seem to suggest a less-than-open community
>> around the site, and I'd worry about Apache branding of it.
>>
>> --
>> Nick Kew
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

It is controled by Apache.

Gj

On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 08:38, Nick Kew  wrote:

>
>
> > On 8 Apr 2019, at 06:22, Greg Stein  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:14 PM Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >> ...
> >
> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
> >>
> >
> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
>
> OK, I'll bite.  I haven't been following this discussion, but the
> question is one that affects other podlings too.
>
> I see netbeans.org carries Apache branding.  Is that OK?
>
> To answer that, I would want to ask who owns and controls it.
> Especially the control question.  If the control is not Apache -
> if the site contents are managed by a community that differs
> from the Apache community (maybe a subset of the project
> committers, or - far worse - a contributing *company*) -
> that would seem to suggest a less-than-open community
> around the site, and I'd worry about Apache branding of it.
>
> --
> Nick Kew
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17245

Gj

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:53 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, I don't think there'd be an objection -- and it might
> be the right moment -- to redirect netbeans.org to netbeans.apache.org
> right now, there's an issue for this with Greg Stein that we could follow
> up in the form of doing this, it would be a good moment because of the
> symbolism with becoming a TLP. Just because netbeans.org would redirect
> to netbeans.apache.org would not mean that plugins.netbeans.org would
> cease to exist, which is the main part we're most concerned about right now.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Note that every link on netbeans.org front page redirects to
>> netbeans.apache.org -- it's simply a facade right now for
>> netbeans.apache.org and is only there since we're concerned that parts
>> of it are still needed. So, it is not the podling's previous website in the
>> true sense of the word.
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:41 AM Justin Mclean  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
>>> >
>>> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
>>>
>>> No specific concern other than a general branding one. It’s slightly
>>> unusual for a podling to graduate with it’s previous website still in
>>> existence, but the explanation given seems to cover why. Perhaps it’s best
>>> to run it past branding before becoming a TLP (if it hasn’t already done
>>> so)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On the other hand, I don't think there'd be an objection -- and it might be
the right moment -- to redirect netbeans.org to netbeans.apache.org right
now, there's an issue for this with Greg Stein that we could follow up in
the form of doing this, it would be a good moment because of the symbolism
with becoming a TLP. Just because netbeans.org would redirect to
netbeans.apache.org would not mean that plugins.netbeans.org would cease to
exist, which is the main part we're most concerned about right now.

Gj

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:48 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Note that every link on netbeans.org front page redirects to
> netbeans.apache.org -- it's simply a facade right now for
> netbeans.apache.org and is only there since we're concerned that parts of
> it are still needed. So, it is not the podling's previous website in the
> true sense of the word.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:41 AM Justin Mclean  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
>> >
>> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
>>
>> No specific concern other than a general branding one. It’s slightly
>> unusual for a podling to graduate with it’s previous website still in
>> existence, but the explanation given seems to cover why. Perhaps it’s best
>> to run it past branding before becoming a TLP (if it hasn’t already done
>> so)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Note that every link on netbeans.org front page redirects to
netbeans.apache.org -- it's simply a facade right now for
netbeans.apache.org and is only there since we're concerned that parts of
it are still needed. So, it is not the podling's previous website in the
true sense of the word.

Gj

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:41 AM Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
> >
> > That question is too open-ended. What is your concern?
>
> No specific concern other than a general branding one. It’s slightly
> unusual for a podling to graduate with it’s previous website still in
> existence, but the explanation given seems to cover why. Perhaps it’s best
> to run it past branding before becoming a TLP (if it hasn’t already done
> so)?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi Justin,

We're close to being able to shutdown/redirect netbeans.org completely and
use netbeans.apache.org for everything. In terms of content, everything we
wanted to keep from netbeans.org, e.g., tutorials and feature descriptions,
has been donated by Oracle to Apache. We're matching the URL structure of
the original netbeans.org as much as possible so that redirects from, for
example, netbeans.org/kb/docs to netbeans.apache.org/kb/docs will be
possible.

The main part that has to be dealt with still is plugins.netbeans.org, for
which there have been several discussions on the dev mailing list at Apache
NetBeans. Here the challenge is that Apache cannot host and distribute the
NetBeans plugins and either Maven Central and/or GitHub will be used for
this, with the application at plugins.netbeans.org (which itself has been
donated by Oracle to Apache) needing to be rewritten to be a catalog of
references to wherever the plugins will be hosted -- and that catalog will
run at netbeans.apache.org via our Apache NetBeans Virtual VM. Once this
part has been completed (at a point that is not possible to determine right
now but one assumes during this year), we'll be able to redirect everything
from netbeans.org to netbeans.apache.org.

Note also that not everything that is NetBeans has been donated yet -- in
particular, the C/C++ features of NetBeans are in process for donation,
with some other parts following that, e.g., support for Python, Ruby, and
several other pieces like that. Hopefully this year too, though np
guarantees -- this is tracked at
cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition, which is
not completely up to date, but something we are working on.

>From Oracle:
* Arunava Sinha 
* Dusan Balek 
* Geertjan Wielenga 
* Jan Lahoda 
* Jan Pirek 
* Jaroslav Tulach 
* Jiří Kovalský 
* Martin Entlicher 
* Reema Taneja 
* Svatopluk Dedic 
* Tomas Zezula 

Newly voted in (i.e., these were not in the initial list of committers):

* Antonio Vieiro 
* Arunava Sinha 
* Eirik Bakke 
* Eric Barboni 
* Jean-Marc Borer 
* John McDonnell 
* Lars Bruun-Hansen 
* Laszlo Kishalmi 
* Reema Taneja 
* Simon Phipps 
* Thilina Ranathunga 

Thanks,

Gj




On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 01:14, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if you could answer a few questions:
> - What the situation with https://netbeans.org website?
> - How diverse (in terms of who employs them) are the proposed PPMC
> members? With the large size I’m assuming many different employers but it
> would still be interesting to know how many are directly or indirectly
> connected to Oracle.
> - How many new committers and PPMC members have been voted in?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[DISCUSS] Graduate Apache NetBeans (incubating) as a TLP

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

Since Apache NetBeans (incubating) entered the Apache incubator in October
2016, we have completed 3 releases, integrated the NetBeans community into
working in the Apache Way, gradually migrated donations received from
Oracle to Apache, and are not complete in that process since there are
several more donations from Oracle coming, though as a community we have
worked well together and together with our mentors we believe we are ready
to become a top level Apache project.

As a community, we have voted and agreed on becoming a top level Apache
project[1], we have worked through the maturity model[2], cleaned up our
roster[3], notified the Apache Incubator that we have the intention to
graduate[4], voted on a PMC chair[5], and discussed the resolution[6].

Please see the resolution below and provide comments, corrections,
suggestions, and feedback. Be careful to note, as indicated above, that we
have spent a lot of time cleaning up our roster[3] and hence the length of
the roster is simply a reflection of the size and scope of the project. The
content of the roster originates from the list of initial committers[7],
together with several contributors voted to be committers and PPMC members
by the PPMC during incubation.

We would like to continue the graduation process and hereby ask you all for
your opinion on this. The discussion is open for 72 hours, after which we
will start a [VOTE] on graduation here.

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of the Apache NetBeans PPMC

1.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/72e59c722580fef2cbaa637735691a549756aeaa72c4cbf52265fbe0@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

2.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Maturity+Model+Assessment+for+NetBeans

3. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Realistic+PMC+Roster

4.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d1287b8c8aeb639c8648bd59129bf244c01f3c29c79889a7c8f2b4f0@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

5.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e0ecae84ac6e4a097a34ce7b2afe0e987e403fe32269fb3903895bbc@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

6.
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f7b2b3b229e50ad74d7bd66fa5fc4a4ec5f88ef46b599ba87b2927cf@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

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

-

Establish the Apache NetBeans Project

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the
Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a
Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of
open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the public, related
to providing a development environment, tooling platform, and application
framework.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC),
to be known as the "Apache NetBeans Project", be and hereby is established
pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Apache NetBeans Project be and hereby is responsible for
the creation and maintenance of software related to providing a development
environment, tooling platform, and application framework; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache NetBeans" be and
hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction
of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache NetBeans Project, and
to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the
scope of responsibility of the Apache NetBeans Project; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are
appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache NetBeans Project:

* Anton Epple 
* Antonio Vieiro 
* Aristides Villarreal 
* Arunava Sinha 
* Ate Douma 
* Attila Kelemen 
* Bertrand Delacretaz 
* Bruno Flávio 
* Bruno Souza 
* Christian Lenz 
* Constantin Drabo 
* David Heffelfinger 
* Daniel Gruno 
* Dusan Balek 
* Eirik Bakke 
* Emilian Bold 
* Emmanuel Hugonnet 
* Eric Barboni 
* Florian Vogler 
* Geertjan Wielenga 
* Glenn Holmer 
* Ivar Grimstad 
* James Gosling 
* Jan Lahoda 
* Jan Pirek 
* Jaroslav Tulach 
* Jean-Marc Borer 
* Jiří Kovalský 
* Joerg Michelberger 
* Johan Vos 
* John Kostaras 
* John McDonnell 
* Josh Juneau 
* José Pereda 
* Junichi Yamamoto 
* Kirk Pepperdine 
* Lars Bruun-Hansen 
* Laszlo Kishalmi 
* Leonardo Zanivan 
* Mark Stephens 
* Mark Struberg 
* Martin Entlicher 
* Martin Klähn 
* Matthias Bläsing 
* Michael Müller 
* Michael Nascimento 
* Michel Graciano 
* Neil C Smith 
* Ralph Benjamin Ruijs 
* Reema Taneja 
* Shai Almog 
* Simon Phipps 
* Svatopluk Dedic 
* Sven Reimers 
* Thilina Ranathunga 
* Timon Veenstra 
* Tomas Mysik 
* Tomas Zezula 
* Tushar Joshi 
* Vladimir Voskresensky 
* Wade Chandler 
* Zoran Sevarac 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Geertjan Wielenga be appointed
to the office of Vice President, Apache NetBeans, to serve in accordance
with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws
of 

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Maybe the PPMC and IPMC vote could run in parallel -- a key reason why we
in Apache NetBeans are looking forward to graduation is that we'll not need
to go through the loop of (1) PPMC approves, (2) IPMC rejects, (3) PPMC
needs to put together a new release and vote on it again, (4) IPMC rejects
again (finding something else they hadn't found before), etc. That's slowed
the releases we have done in the incubator down significantly, typically by
at least 2 weeks -- of course, as will be pointed out, Apache NetBeans is
very large -- but, assuming Apache wants to be a welcome place for large
projects too, something needs to be done here (though it won't be a problem
for Apache NetBeans anymore since we plan to graduate before our next
release). So, if the votes were to at least run in parallel, that would
save time, and maybe as soon as there are 3 +1s from PPMC/IPMC members,
that should be good to go, rather than waiting another 72 hours after that,
in situations where those votes come in quickly.

Gj

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 11:09 AM Julian Feinauer <
j.feina...@pragmaticminds.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like Craigs suggestion and I'm aware of the problem with the ASF Policy
> if we would skip the formal IPMC Vote.
> On the other hand in PLC4X we had a discussion about a regular release
> cycle to bring new features to the users as fast as possible and decided to
> skip that for now, to keep the burden on the IPMC low (and we usually have
> 3 IPMC / Mentor Votes as we have very active Mentors).
> I agree with this decision of the PPMC but I see a problem with that, as
> the IPMC Vote should be something to help podlings (aside from the
> necessity by Policy) but not "negatively" impact them.
>
> Perhaps it helps to see the IPMC Votes more as a "take notice" in case
> that there are already 3 +1 Votes. This means that the vote is open for
> 72hrs formally, but IPMC members do not feel to have to go to action
> (usually as PMC member one "should" participate in votes... although this
> is practiced differently in the IPMC for good reasons) but CAN if they feel
> like.
> This would especially mean that podlings should be encouraged to formulate
> their votes more explicit about whether there are already enough IPMC Votes
> or not.
>
> Julian
>
>
> Am 01.04.19, 23:51 schrieb "Justin Mclean" :
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd also like to see those mentors / IPMC members vote with more than
> just a +1 and provide a list of what they checked. If they could use
> something like this all the better [1].
>
> I wouldn’t be for removing the second step of letting the IPMC look at
> it, reasonably often serious issues are found in that step. By skilling
> that we risk some podlings going all the way to propose graduation while
> having releases that don’t follow ASF policy. This is a situation I’d like
> to avoid.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist
> -
> 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, that’s fair. And possibly an indicator that when a podling is large,
and there are many moving parts, it would be best to, when needed, assume
the podling is doing the best they can under complex circumstances, rather
than that the podling is not following guidelines, ignoring advice, etc.

Gj

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 12:09, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> One also has to see that NetBeans is an exceptionally big and complex
> podling!
>
> For most other projects the existing process works really fine.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 01.04.2019 um 11:35 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga
> :
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mark Struberg  >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We have also previously already checked those files and also have the
> >> sources at hand afaict.
> >> So they should be perfectly fine - as they have been in older NB
> releases
> >> (where we had the question as well).
> >>
> >
> >
> > I think this is the biggest problem with the incubator -- the fact that
> one
> > constantly needs to re-litigate decisions and agreements that have
> already
> > been made in previous releases.
> >
> > Pointing to a list of issues, or a Wiki where these items are listed, is
> > clearly not a solution -- the fact that we have been making use of Apache
> > Rat from the very beginning and that we have a Rat exclusions file was
> also
> > missed, a whole thread was started to bring our intransigence to the
> > attention of the world was started, etc etc. So, I don't see a solution
> > here and it is the IPMC vote that -- while being immensely valuable for
> > being the most detailed -- that invariable causes the most confusion and
> > wasting of time in re-litigating things.
> >
> > So, though I'd like to bring a solution to this, I do not have one.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 30.03.2019 um 07:23 schrieb Wade Chandler  >:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 21:43 Justin Mclean 
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code,
> an
> >>>> ASF release should not include this:
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
> >>>> B
> >>>>
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> To be clear, this is test data; not binary dependencies. Note the names
> >> of
> >>> those files. NetBeans has a module system, and those have nbm
> extensions.
> >>> These nbms are made to test very specific things that can be wrong in
> >>> modules. This would be like having tests for C/C++ linkers and object
> >> files
> >>> etc where you just want to validate the linking not rebuilding object
> >> files
> >>> for tests; rebuilding those every test run adds build time for no gain.
> >>> Make sense, and Ok?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Wade
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:27 AM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> We have also previously already checked those files and also have the
> sources at hand afaict.
> So they should be perfectly fine - as they have been in older NB releases
> (where we had the question as well).
>


I think this is the biggest problem with the incubator -- the fact that one
constantly needs to re-litigate decisions and agreements that have already
been made in previous releases.

Pointing to a list of issues, or a Wiki where these items are listed, is
clearly not a solution -- the fact that we have been making use of Apache
Rat from the very beginning and that we have a Rat exclusions file was also
missed, a whole thread was started to bring our intransigence to the
attention of the world was started, etc etc. So, I don't see a solution
here and it is the IPMC vote that -- while being immensely valuable for
being the most detailed -- that invariable causes the most confusion and
wasting of time in re-litigating things.

So, though I'd like to bring a solution to this, I do not have one.

Gj




>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 30.03.2019 um 07:23 schrieb Wade Chandler :
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 21:43 Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an
> >> ASF release should not include this:
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
> >>  B
> >>
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm
> >>
> >
> > To be clear, this is test data; not binary dependencies. Note the names
> of
> > those files. NetBeans has a module system, and those have nbm extensions.
> > These nbms are made to test very specific things that can be wrong in
> > modules. This would be like having tests for C/C++ linkers and object
> files
> > etc where you just want to validate the linking not rebuilding object
> files
> > for tests; rebuilding those every test run adds build time for no gain.
> > Make sense, and Ok?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Wade
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:26 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 8:01 PM Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >...what comes closest to what
> > you're looking for is the Rat exclusions file...
>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
> ...
>
> And note that that file is mentioned in the
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans README which says
> "NetBeans license violation checks are managed via the
> rat-exclusions.txt file" with a link.
>


Indeed, I didn't want to put too fine a point on it, but a lot of this
whole discussion could have been avoided simply by reading the initial
thread in the IPMC vote thread, where, for example, we explicitly provided
a link to our Ant Rat results file, which would have avoided the "NetBeans
should really consider to use Ant Rat" and "NetBeans really should explain
how it deviates from the norm" type of discussion -- because, again, we
provided all that info directly in the initial vote mail.

Gj




>
> I think although there's a lot of exclusions, NetBeans has done a
> great job in documenting them and gradually improve the situation on
> what's a huge codebase.
>
> -Bertrand (NetBeans incubation mentor)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: List of Projects that went straight to Top Level Projects

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Ah, OK. I’d be interested in the outcome of that research too. I don’t
think it’s common to skip incubation and I’m sure a lot would not be
learned by skipping it.

Gj

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 13:44,  wrote:

> Hi Geertjan
>
> Thanks for the email and I'm not thinking of doing it at all.
>
> I'm planning to do some research for on the embedding of ASF culture and
> incubator is one of the main way this happens. Sometimes as in the cases
> of the projects I mentioned, the process is bypassed so one of the
> things I'd like to investigate is the effect of missing out on
> incubation. My question about the list of projects that went to TLP was
> more about making sure I have as much data as possible to base my
> research on.
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
>
> On 31. 03. 19 13:36, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > I would highly recommend that you don’t do this. What would be the reason
> > to go straight to TLP? There’s a lot to learn and many mistakes to make,
> > and speaking from experience, it is best to learn and make mistakes in
> the
> > incubator, which is precisely its purpose.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 13:28, Sharan Foga  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if there is a list of projects that bypassed
> incubation?
> >> For example - I know a couple of projects Royale and Kibble that went
> >> straight to TLP. Is there a list anywhere for all projects like this?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Sharan
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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: List of Projects that went straight to Top Level Projects

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I would highly recommend that you don’t do this. What would be the reason
to go straight to TLP? There’s a lot to learn and many mistakes to make,
and speaking from experience, it is best to learn and make mistakes in the
incubator, which is precisely its purpose.

Gj

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 13:28, Sharan Foga  wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Does anyone know if there is a list of projects that bypassed incubation?
> For example - I know a couple of projects Royale and Kibble that went
> straight to TLP. Is there a list anywhere for all projects like this?
>
> Thanks
> Sharan
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 05:51, Davor Bonaci  wrote:

> The issue at hand is simply called theft,


For the record, no. No. It was never simply called theft. These files were
part of the donation received from Oracle. We did not add these files in
any way in Apache and simply received them as part of the donation. We have
now removed them, so that this kind of stupid accusation can cease and
since we didn’t care about them at all in the first place.

Gj



and everyone (both inside and
> outside the community) is most welcome to point it out and ask for it to be
> fixed. We thank those individuals who point it out, whether in IPMC or
> otherwise, and look for ways to address it as soon as possible.
>
> Fixing this issue is in the best interest of the foundation, the project,
> the community, the release manager, the copyright owner... everyone. We
> don't push back on this. We don't look for reasons why the individual has
> no standing in pointing it out. We don't find excuses. (If we do and/or
> continue as nothing happened, we'd just make a case that the theft was
> willful and action negligent -- we do not do that.)
>
> So... to be direct -- just fix the damn problem, thank Justin for pointing
> it out, and stop arguing.
>
> You may find that fixing the problem requires no code changes. If you'd
> just politely email the copyright owner, explain the situation, that ASF is
> a charity, offer to promote the photographer in legal notices, you may find
> that a reasonable person will just grant you the permission you need and
> thank you for helping promote his work. This is particularly true if you
> ask for a few photos, out of the photographer's huge collection. It is
> often as simple as that. (Try that instead of arguing here, but make sure
> to phrase things properly so that everyone understands all implications of
> licensing downstream and upstream.)
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:31 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Craig Russell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 
> > >>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably mean
> > >> that they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area even if
> > they
> > >> do get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
> > >>
> > >> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of the
> > images
> > >> is going to make trouble?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I am kind of stunned to hear this.
> >
> > >
> > > The web site where the images came from says:
> > >
> > > We have an extensive commercial picture library of professional Nature
> > and
> > >> Pet photographs. Our images are sold on a rights managed basis and can
> > be
> > >> bought for specific and exclusive uses. All the images on this website
> > are
> > >> ©Warren Photographic and watermarked with our logo.
> > >
> > > (see https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/about.php)
> > >
> > > This sounds a lot like serious photographers trying to make a living.
> > > Anybody who goes to the trouble of watermarking their images is pretty
> > > serious about their work and about people stealing that work.
> > >
> > > But aside from that, quite frankly, Apache is not in the business of
> > > judging whether somebody is powerful enough or aware enough or rich
> > enough
> > > or even just cantankerous enough to make trouble for us about copyright
> > > infringement.
> >
> > This is way over the top. Please don't go there.
> >
> > > We don't even do adversarial forks of open source material
> > > where the license says that it is perfectly fine to do.
> > >
> > > So how can anybody imagine that it is OK to steal some images from
> people
> > > who do not grant the rights to use just because they aren't likely to
> > "make
> > > trouble"?
> > >
> >
> > I am not arguing that the image issue does not need to be resolved. Just
> > the opposite.
> >
> > Perhaps I should have elaborated: Is there a risk that during the next
> few
> > weeks that it will take us to either get permission or remove the image
> > that the owner is going to make trouble?
> >
> > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>> What do other IPMC members think?
> > >>
> > >> I think that if others want to dig into the details, I would encourage
> > >> them to do so. But at this point, I do not believe that the issues you
> > >> raised warrant a -1 on the release.
> > >
> > >
> > > The issue of the photos has been previously raised. The suggested
> > solution
> > > was to delete the photos.
> > >
> > > It should be done.
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> > c...@apache.org  http://db.apache.org/jdo <
> > http://db.apache.org/jdo>
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:36 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

>
> >
> > For the record, we have 4 mentors, two of which have voted +1 on this
> > release so far.
>
> One voted on the IPMC list (right?). I think Graig was asking why they
> didn’t vote on the podling dev list.
>
>
It has never been a practice or assumption in Apache NetBeans that all our
mentors vote on all our releases. We do explicitly ask our mentors to vote
in the podling dev list, normally at least one (in this case Ate) does,
while at least two of the other three tend to vote in the IPMC thread.

The above is how things have transpired, indeed it would be great to have
all mentors voting in the PPMC vote thread, we'd end up very strongly at
the start of the IPMC vote thread in that case, however I don't believe
there's any rule or requirement for that nor an expectation -- and we tend
to have dozens of +1 votes within 72 hours from our community and so we
move on from there to the IPMC thread.

All this is a bit moot at this point since as soon as this release is
completed (which I believe it now is at least in terms of voting), we'll be
discussing to leave the incubator.

Thanks for all the work and support, your reviews of our releases have
always sparked the most discussion. :-)

Gj




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

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, we have -- after a bit of to and fro -- now 4 IPMC votes: Craig,
Justin, Ate, and Mark.

And we have the right amount of time, i.e., 72 hours.

Let's mark the items listed by Justin as blockers for the next release (the
cat picture deletion is a PR already).

I'd say there's nothing stopping us from releasing Apache NetBeans 11.0!

Gj


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:19 PM Craig Russell  wrote:

> It appears to me that there has been some miscommunication and/or missing
> documentation of the issues raised earlier.
>
> In case it needs to be said, if the PPMC and Justin can come to an
> agreement, there is no need for another build and vote.
>
> I'd encourage the Mentors to engage with Justin to resolve these issues.
> Specifically, for each item that Justin raised, make sure there is a JIRA.
> Then work through all of the JIRA issues individually. As a community. The
> Apache Way.
>
> Craig
>
> > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:01 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> We need to have clarity on what exactly we need to work on in relation
> to
> >> licensing -- we are definitely not going to license data files because
> (a)
> >> Apache does not require it and (2) it would break our tests, which is
> why
> >> Apache does not require it. That's the bulk of the issues raised by
> Justin.
> >
> > The missing headers are not major issue it was the other issues
> concerning binaries, copyright issues, and missing license text that are
> the concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> c...@apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:05 PM Craig Russell  wrote:

>
>
> I will again raise the question of why the mentors failed to vote on the
> release. I'd like to make it a stronger suggestion that Mentors SHOULD vote
> on releases prior to sending the release vote to the IPMC.
>

For the record, we have 4 mentors, two of which have voted +1 on this
release so far.

Gj



>
> It looks to me like the issues raised on this vote thread have been
> discussed before and resolved. The right place to resolve issues is, well,
> on JIRA.
>
> > On Mar 30, 2019, at 7:03 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >
> > And here is the list of items specifically how we dealt with each from
> > Justin's previous list of comments with the +1 from the 10.0 IPMC vote
> > thread, in other words, we have taken his issues and concerns seriously
> and
> > discussed them and dealt with them:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/10.0-vc5 <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/10.0-vc5>
> >
> > How much better a citizen of the Apache Way can one be than we have been
> in
> > responding and dealing with licensing concerns of all shapes and sizes.
> >
> > Gj
> >
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> c...@apache.org <mailto:c...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <
> http://db.apache.org/jdo>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 7:49 AM Adrian Cole  wrote:

>
> I'm excited about netbeans becoming an apache TLP, and also interested
> in learning if there are things in that process (beyond the photo
> snatching) other podlings like the one I am should be careful of.
>


Here it is:
https://foss-backstage.de/session/10-tips-moving-large-corporate-projects-apache

Gj



>
> Cheers,
> -A
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:35 PM Adrian Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree please email the author of the cat photo or find another cat.
> > This topic is boring and probably there are actual important things we
> > are defocused from when focusing so massively on this photo.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:51 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> > >
> > > The issue at hand is simply called theft, and everyone (both inside and
> > > outside the community) is most welcome to point it out and ask for it
> to be
> > > fixed. We thank those individuals who point it out, whether in IPMC or
> > > otherwise, and look for ways to address it as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Fixing this issue is in the best interest of the foundation, the
> project,
> > > the community, the release manager, the copyright owner... everyone. We
> > > don't push back on this. We don't look for reasons why the individual
> has
> > > no standing in pointing it out. We don't find excuses. (If we do and/or
> > > continue as nothing happened, we'd just make a case that the theft was
> > > willful and action negligent -- we do not do that.)
> > >
> > > So... to be direct -- just fix the damn problem, thank Justin for
> pointing
> > > it out, and stop arguing.
> > >
> > > You may find that fixing the problem requires no code changes. If you'd
> > > just politely email the copyright owner, explain the situation, that
> ASF is
> > > a charity, offer to promote the photographer in legal notices, you may
> find
> > > that a reasonable person will just grant you the permission you need
> and
> > > thank you for helping promote his work. This is particularly true if
> you
> > > ask for a few photos, out of the photographer's huge collection. It is
> > > often as simple as that. (Try that instead of arguing here, but make
> sure
> > > to phrase things properly so that everyone understands all
> implications of
> > > licensing downstream and upstream.)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:31 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ted,
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Craig Russell <
> apache@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably
> mean
> > > > >> that they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area
> even if
> > > > they
> > > > >> do get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of
> the
> > > > images
> > > > >> is going to make trouble?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I am kind of stunned to hear this.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The web site where the images came from says:
> > > > >
> > > > > We have an extensive commercial picture library of professional
> Nature
> > > > and
> > > > >> Pet photographs. Our images are sold on a rights managed basis
> and can
> > > > be
> > > > >> bought for specific and exclusive uses. All the images on this
> website
> > > > are
> > > > >> ©Warren Photographic and watermarked with our logo.
> > > > >
> > > > > (see https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/about.php)
> > > > >
> > > > > This sounds a lot like serious photographers trying to make a
> living.
> > > > > Anybody who goes to the trouble of watermarking their images is
> pretty
> > > > > serious about their work and about people stealing that work.
> > > > >
> > > > > But aside from that, quite frankly, Apache is not in the business
> of
> > > > > judging whether somebody is powerful enough or aware enough or rich
> > > > enough
> > > > > or even just cantankerous enough to make trouble for us about
> copyright
> > > > > infringement.
> > > >
> > > > This is way over the top. Please don't go there.
> > > >
> > > > > We don't even do adversarial forks of open source material
> > > > > where the license says that it is perfectly fine to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > So how can anybody imagine that it is OK to steal some images from
> people
> > > > > who do not grant the rights to use just because they aren't likely
> to
> > > > "make
> > > > > trouble"?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not arguing that the image issue does not need to be resolved.
> Just
> > > > the opposite.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps I should have elaborated: Is there a risk that during the
> next few
> > > > weeks that it will take us to either get permission or remove the
> image
> > > > that the owner is going to make trouble?
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What do other IPMC members think?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I 

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The images have been deleted. The sample containing them has been deleted.
Of the millions of lines of code in Apache NetBeans, the deleted sample is
so completely unimportant that it is impossible to express its
unimportance. There isn’t even a metaphor I can think of to illustrate
this. Thanks, let’s stop discussing this topic.

Gj

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 07:49, Adrian Cole  wrote:

> It appears a jira issue was updated about the cat photo IP and what to
> do about it. My 2p is park the cat thing there, give it a chance to
> proceed, and let's move on.
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820?focusedCommentId=16805839=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-16805839
>
> I'm excited about netbeans becoming an apache TLP, and also interested
> in learning if there are things in that process (beyond the photo
> snatching) other podlings like the one I am should be careful of.
>
> Cheers,
> -A
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:35 PM Adrian Cole 
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree please email the author of the cat photo or find another cat.
> > This topic is boring and probably there are actual important things we
> > are defocused from when focusing so massively on this photo.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:51 AM Davor Bonaci  wrote:
> > >
> > > The issue at hand is simply called theft, and everyone (both inside and
> > > outside the community) is most welcome to point it out and ask for it
> to be
> > > fixed. We thank those individuals who point it out, whether in IPMC or
> > > otherwise, and look for ways to address it as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > Fixing this issue is in the best interest of the foundation, the
> project,
> > > the community, the release manager, the copyright owner... everyone. We
> > > don't push back on this. We don't look for reasons why the individual
> has
> > > no standing in pointing it out. We don't find excuses. (If we do and/or
> > > continue as nothing happened, we'd just make a case that the theft was
> > > willful and action negligent -- we do not do that.)
> > >
> > > So... to be direct -- just fix the damn problem, thank Justin for
> pointing
> > > it out, and stop arguing.
> > >
> > > You may find that fixing the problem requires no code changes. If you'd
> > > just politely email the copyright owner, explain the situation, that
> ASF is
> > > a charity, offer to promote the photographer in legal notices, you may
> find
> > > that a reasonable person will just grant you the permission you need
> and
> > > thank you for helping promote his work. This is particularly true if
> you
> > > ask for a few photos, out of the photographer's huge collection. It is
> > > often as simple as that. (Try that instead of arguing here, but make
> sure
> > > to phrase things properly so that everyone understands all
> implications of
> > > licensing downstream and upstream.)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:31 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Ted,
> > > >
> > > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:57 PM Craig Russell <
> apache@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> 
> > > > >>> copyright issues on the cute cat and rabbit photos [1] probably
> mean
> > > > >> that they cannot put that release in the ASF distribution area
> even if
> > > > they
> > > > >> do get 3 +1s without legal and infra approval.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> We have to look at risk here. Is there a risk that the owner of
> the
> > > > images
> > > > >> is going to make trouble?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > I am kind of stunned to hear this.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The web site where the images came from says:
> > > > >
> > > > > We have an extensive commercial picture library of professional
> Nature
> > > > and
> > > > >> Pet photographs. Our images are sold on a rights managed basis
> and can
> > > > be
> > > > >> bought for specific and exclusive uses. All the images on this
> website
> > > > are
> > > > >> ©Warren Photographic and watermarked with our logo.
> > > > >
> > > > > (see https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/about.php)
> > > > >
> > > > > This sounds a lot like serious photographers trying to make a
> living.
> > > > > Anybody who goes to the trouble of watermarking their images is
> pretty
> > > > > serious about their work and about people stealing that work.
> > > > >
> > > > > But aside from that, quite frankly, Apache is not in the business
> of
> > > > > judging whether somebody is powerful enough or aware enough or rich
> > > > enough
> > > > > or even just cantankerous enough to make trouble for us about
> copyright
> > > > > infringement.
> > > >
> > > > This is way over the top. Please don't go there.
> > > >
> > > > > We don't even do adversarial forks of open source material
> > > > > where the license says that it is perfectly fine to do.
> > > > >
> > > > > So how can anybody imagine that it is OK to steal some images from
> people
> > > > > who do 

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

+1 Thanks for these sensible words and probably what comes closest to what
you're looking for is the Rat exclusions file, i.e., these are the
deviations in terms of licensing in relation to what most people expect
from Apache projects and why things are fine despite that:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

If more or clearer descriptions are needed to the above, let us know, we're
very happy to add any and all info needed.

Gj


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:44 PM David Jencks 
wrote:

> Personally, I’d appreciate it if everyone involved in this discussion
> decided that all parties are equally correct and expanded the scope of what
> they were paying attention to so as to dissolve any apparent contradictions.
>
> All i know about this situation I’ve learned from this thread, but, for
> example…
> Justin reviewed this release candidate and found a lot of files that
> appear to not adhere to normal apache standards for license headers.
> Apparently this has been discussed extensively in the past, including with
> Justin, but for this review apparently he wasn’t appreciating that context.
> Project members think these files are just fine for various reasons,
> apparently documented in Jira and the mailing lists.
> If I put myself in Justin’s place, I think, perhaps,…. I’d like to review
> this release candidate, perhaps as an introduction to getting more involved
> in the project…. hmmm this is odd, this appears to violate what I expect
> for what appears to be source code even it’s for tests…. what’s going on?
> If I put myself in a long-time project member’s place, I think,…. we’ve
> dealt with all these licensing issues, it’s right there in lira, let’s try
> a relasse….
> From my own point of view, I think it would be nice to be able to review a
> release candidate without being a long-term project member with extensive
> historical knowledge. Perhaps a review guide pointing out deviations from
> what most people expect from apache projects and why they are fine would
> help.
>
> Thanks
> David Jencks
>
> > On Mar 30, 2019, at 10:42 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler  <mailto:wadechand...@apache.org>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> >>> - Have made several releases before.
> >>> - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to
> fix.
> >>> - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
> >>>
> >>> Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still
> have
> >>> to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> >>> binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
> >> and
> >>> rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in
> the
> >>> ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> >>> approval.
> >>>
> >>> What do other IPMC members think?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of
> which
> >> you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered
> these
> >> with our mentors as an example?
> >
> >
> >
> > +1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these
> issues"
> > is false, insulting, and misleading.
> >
> > I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
> > explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.
> >
> > I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
> > respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
> > tone isn't what I want to be involved with.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
> >> premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
> >> appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the
> referenced
> >> issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one
> this
> >> is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
> >> discussed with you Justin.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Wade
>
>

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 6:26 PM Wade Chandler 
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 22:34 Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The  Netbeans RC is an interesting one as they:
> > - Have made several releases before.
> > - Have been given advice from the IPMC on serious issues and what to fix.
> > - Looks like nothing has been done to correct those issues.
> >
> > Now I know we’re trying to be more lenient on releases but we still have
> > to draw the line somewhere and this is not their first release. The the
> > binary in source code, license issues copyright issues on the cute cat
> and
> > rabbit photos [1] probably mean that they cannot put that release in the
> > ASF distribution area even if they do get 3 +1s without legal and infra
> > approval.
> >
> > What do other IPMC members think?
> >
>
> Interestingly though there is a Jira issue related to these items of which
> you speak, and there has been mentor input on them; have you covered these
> with our mentors as an example?



+1. Indeed, this "looks like nothing has been done to correct these issues"
is false, insulting, and misleading.

I believe I need to explicitly need to say these things since Justin so
explicitly calls out the NetBeans RC here.

I could equally well say a couple of other things, but won't, since I
respect Justin and we're all striving for the same goals and this kind of
tone isn't what I want to be involved with.

Gj




> This thread seems a little (maybe quite)
> premature; maybe some disconnect. This discussion actually seems more
> appropriate in the NetBeans channels, and in fact please see the referenced
> issues and comments in those channels including release 10 and the one this
> is related to, 11, where addressing these issues has been specifically
> discussed with you Justin.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wade
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

And here is the list of items specifically how we dealt with each from
Justin's previous list of comments with the +1 from the 10.0 IPMC vote
thread, in other words, we have taken his issues and concerns seriously and
discussed them and dealt with them:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/10.0-vc5

How much better a citizen of the Apache Way can one be than we have been in
responding and dealing with licensing concerns of all shapes and sizes.

Gj


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:46 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I’m fine with retreating and getting the work done that needs to be done.
> However, before retreating we need to know exactly and specifically what we
> are agreed on that we are going to do. E.g., we are not going to license
> heaps of files that are data and that Apache explicitly for that reason
> allows us to keep unlicensed.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 13:33, Laszlo Kishalmi 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Justin, for the really in-depth analysis!
>>
>> I'm traveling right now with very limited internet access.
>>
>> I think, regarding that we are about to graduate soon, we need to
>> address these concerns. Retreat, and get that work done.
>>
>> I'm going to call off the vote.
>>
>> A prompt action plan:
>>
>> 1. We need to include another build step, for creating those binaries
>> form some kind of source.
>>
>> 2. The crafted parser/compiler/code completion test data shall be left
>> as it is, I do not know better solution than add their license as we do
>> with images in license-info.xml. We have many of tests placing the
>> cursor directly at a place of these input files then test an IDE action
>> (that's just an example)
>>
>> 3. I think we need further guidance what to do with 3rd party licenses
>> which are refering to libraries which are not present in the source
>> distribution but pulled in build time. We obviously need to include
>> those into the convenience binaries.
>>
>> Laszlo Kishalmi
>>
>> On 3/29/19 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Sorry but I’m -1 as there is binary code in the source release and
>> possible copyright issues and there are a number of other issues as well.
>> Most of these issues have been brought up before on previous releases and
>> have not been addressed e.g. [3] While each incubating release doesn’t need
>> to be perfect, issues found, particularly serious ones, do need to be
>> fixed. I suggest you speak to your mentors on how to correct this issues.
>> >
>> > I will not however that my -1 vote is not a veto, and you can still
>> release the software if you get 3 +1 IPMC votes and more +1’s than -1’s.
>> >
>> > I checked:
>> > - incubating in name
>> > - DISCLAIMER exists
>> > - LICENSE and NOTICE need more work (see below)
>> > - There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF
>> headers, Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php
>> files that are missing the ASF headers.
>> > - Compiled code is included in the source release  (see below)
>> > - I didn’t try to compile
>> >
>> > Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an
>> ASF release should not include this:
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
>> >B
>>  
>> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
>> >B
>>  

Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

We need to have clarity on what exactly we need to work on in relation to
licensing -- we are definitely not going to license data files because (a)
Apache does not require it and (2) it would break our tests, which is why
Apache does not require it. That's the bulk of the issues raised by Justin.
We need to have clarity from him, at least, about what we actually need to
achieve otherwise there's no point trying to do another vote which will
fail again for the same questionable reasons.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 1:58 PM Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> It seems we need to have some heavy lifting on the licensing side, so I'm
> canceling this vote.
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
> Volunteer Release Manager of Apache NetBeans 11.0
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I’m fine with retreating and getting the work done that needs to be done.
However, before retreating we need to know exactly and specifically what we
are agreed on that we are going to do. E.g., we are not going to license
heaps of files that are data and that Apache explicitly for that reason
allows us to keep unlicensed.

Gj


On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 13:33, Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Thank you Justin, for the really in-depth analysis!
>
> I'm traveling right now with very limited internet access.
>
> I think, regarding that we are about to graduate soon, we need to
> address these concerns. Retreat, and get that work done.
>
> I'm going to call off the vote.
>
> A prompt action plan:
>
> 1. We need to include another build step, for creating those binaries
> form some kind of source.
>
> 2. The crafted parser/compiler/code completion test data shall be left
> as it is, I do not know better solution than add their license as we do
> with images in license-info.xml. We have many of tests placing the
> cursor directly at a place of these input files then test an IDE action
> (that's just an example)
>
> 3. I think we need further guidance what to do with 3rd party licenses
> which are refering to libraries which are not present in the source
> distribution but pulled in build time. We obviously need to include
> those into the convenience binaries.
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
>
> On 3/29/19 6:43 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry but I’m -1 as there is binary code in the source release and
> possible copyright issues and there are a number of other issues as well.
> Most of these issues have been brought up before on previous releases and
> have not been addressed e.g. [3] While each incubating release doesn’t need
> to be perfect, issues found, particularly serious ones, do need to be
> fixed. I suggest you speak to your mentors on how to correct this issues.
> >
> > I will not however that my -1 vote is not a veto, and you can still
> release the software if you get 3 +1 IPMC votes and more +1’s than -1’s.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - incubating in name
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE need more work (see below)
> > - There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF
> headers, Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php
> files that are missing the ASF headers.
> > - Compiled code is included in the source release  (see below)
> > - I didn’t try to compile
> >
> > Theres are the binary inclusions that seem to contain compiled code, an
> ASF release should not include this:
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/com-example-testmodule-cluster.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-brokendepending.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-depending_on_new_one_engine.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-1.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine-1-2.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-engine.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-executable-permissions.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-fragment.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent-1-1.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-independent.nbm
> >B
>  
> ./platform/autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupdate/data/org-yourorghere-refresh_providers_test.nbm
> >
> > There are a number of other suspicious binary files as well, include one
> mentioned in [3].
> >
> > I think there some more work to do on licensing here, and these will be
> needed to be fixed in a later release:
> > - You are not compiling with the terms of the licenses of the software
> you have bundled. Most licenses need for you to include the full text of
> the license and not just list it license. This is an issue with most of the
> dtd files, note that some licenses include a copyright line so a single
> copy of that type of license is not enough.
> > - As well as listing  the 3rd party files it would be to also see the
> product and version number included.
> > - As it is currently structured it’s not easily possible to check if you
> are including all of the needed licenses in LICENSES as you are also
> including the text of licenses of things that are not bundled 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Sure, but this image thing is trivial, we should simply remove those and we
don’t care about the sample that contains them anyway. Also, again, note
that we had not ignored or dismissed your comments from the previous
release.

So, to your question whether we have a Rat report, we do have one as
pointed out in my response, as well as in the initial vote thread where
that was very explicitly stated and linked. We also have an exclusions
file, which I have pointed to explicitly and which is the same as when you
looked at it in the previous release, with items agreed upon over previous
releases.

It seems that the majority if not all items you have raised are files in
the ‘data’ category which we have excluded via Rat, an accepted approach in
accordance with Apache guidelines.

Now, what specific items remain blocking the release? Note we are as always
trying to do everything as best we can, following all requirements to the
best of our abilities, doing all we can to comply, acting in good faith,
and simply asking you to weigh up these considerations with all due respect
and hoping you will be explicit on, bearing the above in mind, which are
the true blockers from your point of view.

Thanks again,

Gj


On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 10:48, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
> > previous release, e.g.:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820
> >
> > But if you disagree with the above, no prob, we can simply delete those
> > images or replace them with something or remove the whole sample -- it
> uses
> > outdated code anyway.
>
> If you want to keep them I suggest you ask on legal discuss and when doing
> so, point them to this web site [1]. Just becomes they were in the donation
> don’t mean that they don’t have IP issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> 1. https://www.warrenphotographic.co.uk/10542-kitten-and-rabbit
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi Justin,

Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
previous release, e.g.:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1820

But if you disagree with the above, no prob, we can simply delete those
images or replace them with something or remove the whole sample -- it uses
outdated code anyway.

Based on the above responses is there a chance you could change your vote
to 0 or +1, i.e., what would be needed for you to do that -- we do value
your vote and would of course prefer to not continue with the release while
it remains -1.

Gj

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:37 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
> previous release, e.g.:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 8:24 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> >
>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>>>
>>> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too
>>> much, that can be a common problem.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi Justin,

Note also that we have worked on the items that you mentioned in the
previous release, e.g.:


On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 8:24 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>
> Gj
>
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>>
>> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too much,
>> that can be a common problem.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

We have spent a lot of time on that, documenting them in detail:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

Gj

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 08:16, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> You may want to check that your rat excursions are not ignoring too much,
> that can be a common problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Netbeans 11.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 4]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/404/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt

Gj

On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 at 07:58, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > I assume we are taking about files like:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java
>
> Those are some of the files yes but there are a few not in test
> directories. Does the project use rat to look for issues? By my very rough
> count there are 5,000 +  source files without ASF headers, (13,000+ if you
> include the .pass files), but only two dozen files of those source file are
> out side of test directories.
>
> BTW  If this was the only issue I’d would have voted differently, although
> the question needs to be asked why this issue has been raised previously on
> this list and no response given?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Fwd: [VOTE] Apache NetBeans graduation to Top Level Project

[Geertjan Wielenga]

As stated in the Apache guidelines[1], I am being wise and am notifying the
incubator general list that the community vote for graduating Apache
NetBeans has started by FWD-ing the [VOTE] e-mail to the general list.

Thanks,

Gj

[1]
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community_graduation_vote

-- Forwarded message -
From: Geertjan Wielenga 
Date: Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:47 AM
Subject: [VOTE] Apache NetBeans graduation to Top Level Project
To: dev , dev 


Hi all,

After a discussion amongst the Apache NetBeans community on the dev mailing
list[1], voting on a PMC chair[2], checking the podling status page[3], and
working through the maturity model[4], I would like to call a vote for
Apache NetBeans graduating to a top level project.

Apache NetBeans entered the incubator on October 1, 2016. Since then, we
have announced 2 releases, nominated several new committers, participated
in conferences and events, have 99 contributors with 2,423 commits, and --
most importantly -- have grown and diversified our community. Apache
NetBeans is a healthy project that is already acting like an Apache top
level project, so we should take the next step.

If we agree that we should graduate to a top level project, the next step
will be to draft a Resolution for the PPMC and IPMC to vote upon.

Please take a minute to vote on whether or not Apache NetBeans should
graduate to a Top Level Project by responding with one of the following:

[ ] +1 Apache NetBeans should graduate.
[ ] +0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Apache NetBeans should not graduate (please provide the reason)

The VOTE is open for a minimum of 72 hours. Per Apache guidelines[5] I will
also be notifying the incubator mailing list that a community vote is under
way.

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of the Apache NetBeans PPMC

[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8724c66eb22c1ceea81160968cb5ae68fdc2180f46fbbfaab16b4ce9@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
[2]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e0ecae84ac6e4a097a34ce7b2afe0e987e403fe32269fb3903895bbc@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
[3] https://whimsy.apache.org/pods/project/netbeans
[4]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Maturity+Model+Assessment+for+NetBeans
[5]
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community_graduation_vote

Re: Official releases vs unreleased code

[Geertjan Wielenga]

So, just to be clear what this means in the context of Apache NetBeans.

Here's two different scenarios that relate to this:

1. CoolBeans (coolbeans.xyz) is a distribution of Apache NetBeans, with the
difference that it includes the 'enterprise' cluster (i.e., Jakarta/Java EE
features) of Apache NetBeans, which we have not yet released. We are
working to release this as part of our upcoming release and have several
licensing issues remaining. However, since CoolBeans is not distributed by
Apache, CoolBeans is not constrained by Apache's licensing concerns.

Reading Justin's e-mail, I interpret him to state that it is not allowed to
promote releases to the wider community that contain not released code,
i.e., on the Apache NetBeans webpage, we cannot promote CoolBeans, on
Apache NetBeans Twitter, we cannot promote CoolBeans, on the Apache
NetBeans mailing lists, we cannot promote CoolBeans.

Is this interpretation correct?

2. Even though we have not released the 'enterprise' cluster, we do have
plugins from before we were an Apache project for Java/Jakarta EE features.
These are available from a plugin portal and are built from the the same
code as is found in the Apache NetBeans GitHub, though created from before
that code was at Apache.

Can we promote these plugins?

Thanks,

Gj





On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 12:21 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Over the last few months I’ve run into 1/2 dozen podlings who are making
> and promoting releases to the wider community that contain unreleased code,
> and I’m a little surprised that they were unaware that this is not allowed.
> This also has come up in feedback received from the exit questionnaire.
>
> In the release policy [3] it clearly states:
> "Projects MUST direct outsiders towards official releases rather than raw
> source repositories, nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any
> other similar packages.”
>
> This has been discussed many times but these two legal JIRAs [1][2] spell
> it out quite clearly. And while these tickets refer to docker the same
> applies to any distribution mechanism.
>
> In short “It is appropriate to distribute official releases through
> downstream channels, but inappropriate to distribute unreleased materials
> through them.”
>
> So if your projects is using docker, PiPY, GitHub releases, npm or any
> other ways of distribution please make sure that the wider community is
> only pointed at official release and the best way to do this is not to
> publish unreleased code on those platforms. Ask yourself is someone outside
> of the project likely to use this and if the answer is yes then reconsider
> how you are using that distribution channel and make sure it only contains
> official releases.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-270
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-427
> 3. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#publication
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I believe it is at least 5 days (or an X number, not sure what the X should
be officially) and with three +1 votes.

Gj

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 5:04 PM Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> That thread had a 5 days deadline, which is over.
>
> Well Apache does not say what to do when the required criteria for a
> voting thread has not met as of not having enough votes. Though telling
> the truth Apache does not say that this vote should have a deadline set
> at all, I took that from our previous IPMC voting thread, that's my bad.
>
> Probably I should not have set a deadline over it or just move that
> deadline.
>
> On 11/18/18 7:38 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > Or, no, not this one (i.e., this is the RESULT thread, which is too
> early),
> > but the first VOTE thread you started.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:37 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But that's not needed at all. We just need at least two IPMC members to
> >> vote +1 in the original thread (i.e., this one).
> >>
> >> Gj
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM Laszlo Kishalmi <
> laszlo.kisha...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thank you for pointing that out!
> >>>
> >>> I'm going to kick off another Voting Thread then.
> >>>
> >>> On 11/17/18 11:02 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>> The release has PASSED with the following implicit IPMC vote and an
> >>> voting thread open for 5 days:
> >>>>> +1 Mark Struberg (binding)
> >>>> No sorry the vote hasn't passed yet, you need 3 +1 IPMC votes (and
> more
> >>> +1 than -1) for it to pass.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Justin
> >>>>
> >>>> -
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Or, no, not this one (i.e., this is the RESULT thread, which is too early),
but the first VOTE thread you started.

Gj

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:37 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> But that's not needed at all. We just need at least two IPMC members to
> vote +1 in the original thread (i.e., this one).
>
> Gj
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM Laszlo Kishalmi 
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for pointing that out!
>>
>> I'm going to kick off another Voting Thread then.
>>
>> On 11/17/18 11:02 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> The release has PASSED with the following implicit IPMC vote and an
>> voting thread open for 5 days:
>> >>
>> >> +1 Mark Struberg (binding)
>> > No sorry the vote hasn't passed yet, you need 3 +1 IPMC votes (and more
>> +1 than -1) for it to pass.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > -
>> > 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: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

But that's not needed at all. We just need at least two IPMC members to
vote +1 in the original thread (i.e., this one).

Gj

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Thank you for pointing that out!
>
> I'm going to kick off another Voting Thread then.
>
> On 11/17/18 11:02 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> The release has PASSED with the following implicit IPMC vote and an
> voting thread open for 5 days:
> >>
> >> +1 Mark Struberg (binding)
> > No sorry the vote hasn't passed yet, you need 3 +1 IPMC votes (and more
> +1 than -1) for it to pass.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > -
> > 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: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

A few additions to the above:

1. Apache NetBeans vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8c33a85bad3631fe4fa3aebe9196942ab71baa1788b8ebc1256083de@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

2. Apache NetBeans PPMC result vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9cdf17a2e86bdba487cb8db0ca38c5d611f236c09e8b3ff49f6ca22a@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

One binding IPMC +1 vote, carried over to IPMC vote thread:

Mark Struberg

Non-binding +1 votes:

-- Josh Juneau
-- Eric Barboni
-- Junichi Yamamoto
-- Jaroslav Tulach
-- Laszlo Kishalmi
-- Geertjan Wielenga
-- Jens Hofschröer
-- Ricardo Pacheco
-- Ludovic Hochet

3. The link to the convenience binary should be as follows:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans/incubating-10.0-vc3/incubating-netbeans-10.0-vc3-bin.zip

4. A survey of over 100 Apache NetBeans community members on the
functioning of the convenience binary:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Results+from+Apache+NetBeans+IDE+10.0+Community+Acceptance+survey

Thanks,

Gj

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:56 AM Laszlo Kishalmi 
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) [vc3].
>
> We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
> this incubator release candidate.
>
>
> Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) constitutes all but the enterprise
> cluster in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
> NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), as well as
> all the modules that provide the Java SE, PHP, JavaScript and Groovy
> features of Apache NetBeans.
>
> In short, Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating) is a full IDE for Java SE and
> PHP, JavaScript development with some Groovy language support.
>
> Build artifacts available here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans/incubating-10.0-vc3
>
> The specific artifact to be voted on:
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans/incubating-10.0-vc3/incubating-netbeans-10.0-vc3-source.zip
>
> Included in the above are the DEPENDENCIES, DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, and
> NOTICE files, as well as a README file with build instructions, which are
> the same as these:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/release100/README.md
>
> SHA1: 028b47ca10118e616208e4949fb79c2e38d74fd5
>
> KEYS file:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
>
> Apache NetBeans Git Repo tag: 10.0-vc3 :
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/10.0-vc3
>
> Note: NetBeans license violation checks are managed via the
> rat-exclusions.txt file:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/release100/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>
> Rat report shows no unknown licenses, except for license files:
>
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/365/artifact/rat-release-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> Included as a convenience binary, not relevant for the voting purposes
> (unzip it, run it and you'll see Apache NetBeans):
>
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans/incubating-10.0-vc3/incubating-netbeans-10.0-vc1-bin.zip
>
>
>
> Release specific wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+10
>
> How (and what) to try out the release:
>
> 1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
> 2. Verify the cryptographic signatures, the NOTICE and LICENSE file
> 3. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
> 4. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by the
> build process.
> 5. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll be
> prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms, and
> (if you're running on JDK 9+), you'll be able to use javac directly from
> JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install nb-javac, after
> agreeing to its licensing terms. As this is our first multi purpose (Java
> SE, PHP, JS, Groovy) release, some features has to be enabled in Tools >
> Plugins > Installed tab, or get's automatically enabled on first use of a
> feature.
>
>
> If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up vote
> +1 in this thread.
>
> Please try out the package, using the instructions above, and vote!
>
> This vote is open for 5 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 10.0 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Laszlo Kishalmi
> on behalf on the Apache NetBeans PPMC
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Here's an article that is really well done and describes the context of
this vote thread, maybe helpful as background info here:

*https://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2018/07/netbeans-9-almost-final.aspx
<https://adtmag.com/blogs/watersworks/2018/07/netbeans-9-almost-final.aspx>*

Thanks,

Gj




On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Not directly relevant since this is relevant to the functioning of the
> convenience binary, but it might be interesting from an informative point
> of view for all to know that the Apache NetBeans (incubating) community has
> done a Community Acceptance survey [1] for users of the upcoming Apache
> NetBeans (incubating) 9.0. I.e., the survey is about the usage and
> functionality of the convenience binary of the voting candidate under
> consideration in this thread and the results are documented below.
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Results+from+Apache+NetBeans+IDE+9.0+Community+Acceptance+survey
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Emilian Bold  invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
>> release Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) [vc3].
>>
>> We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
>> this incubator release candidate.
>>
>> Vote thread:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a644bb8e3ba2cbd06328bb0
>> 04f1b18b4171763cd3d78a9131615f687@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>>
>> Vote result thread:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/31f8a8fd70dc2ba635c6a67
>> 693c512ed9e5b30af99fbe79afe55293b@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>>
>> In the above, note there are two IPMC binding votes from Ate Douma and
>> Bertrand Delacretaz, both Apache NetBeans (incubating) mentors, 11 PPMC
>> votes and 16 Apache NetBeans community votes.
>>
>> Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) constitutes all the modules in the
>> Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the NetBeans Platform
>> (i.e., the underlying application framework), as well as all the modules
>> that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
>>
>> In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) is a full IDE for Java SE
>> development.
>>
>> Build artifacts available here:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/in
>> cubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3
>>
>> The specific artifact to be voted on:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/in
>> cubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/incubating-netbean
>> s-java-9.0-source.zip
>>
>> Included in the above are the DEPENDENCIES, DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, and
>> NOTICE files, as well as a README file with build instructions, which are
>> the same as these:
>>
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.
>> git;a=blob_plain;f=README.md;h=eccd3c6cc707ba9ca219bcfb7297
>> 9435d85f5f7a;hb=97904961e496383d6150aef9b78fa8dff8f3e1ce
>>
>> SHA1: ed2098c173460ec81f05635055066da06a7ea82b
>>
>> KEYS file:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
>>
>> Apache NetBeans Git Repo tag: 9.0-vc3 :
>>
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.
>> git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/9.0-vc3
>>
>> Note: NetBeans license violation checks are managed via the
>> rat-exclusions.txt file:
>>
>> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.
>> git;a=blob;f=nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt;h=36cb8a3eae40b
>> d7fc41c63c6055bce42f7916859;hb=97904961e496383d6150aef9b78fa8dff8f3e1ce
>>
>> Rat report shows no unknown licenses, except for license files:
>>
>> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/334
>> /artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>>
>> Included as a convenience binary, not relevant for the voting purposes
>> (unzip it, run it and you'll see Apache NetBeans):
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/in
>> cubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/incubating-netbean
>> s-java-9.0-bin.zip
>>
>> Also included as a convenience binary the NBMs:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/in
>> cubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/nbms
>>
>> New & Noteworthy features of the 9.0 Release:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+
>> NetBeans+9.0+New+and+Notewor

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) [vote candidate 3]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

Not directly relevant since this is relevant to the functioning of the
convenience binary, but it might be interesting from an informative point
of view for all to know that the Apache NetBeans (incubating) community has
done a Community Acceptance survey [1] for users of the upcoming Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0. I.e., the survey is about the usage and
functionality of the convenience binary of the voting candidate under
consideration in this thread and the results are documented below.

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Results
+from+Apache+NetBeans+IDE+9.0+Community+Acceptance+survey

Thanks,

Gj



On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 7:27 AM, Emilian Bold <
emilian.b...@protonmail.ch.invalid> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
> release Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) [vc3].
>
> We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
> this incubator release candidate.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a644bb8e3ba2cbd06328bb004f1b18
> b4171763cd3d78a9131615f687@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> Vote result thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/31f8a8fd70dc2ba635c6a67693c512
> ed9e5b30af99fbe79afe55293b@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>
> In the above, note there are two IPMC binding votes from Ate Douma and
> Bertrand Delacretaz, both Apache NetBeans (incubating) mentors, 11 PPMC
> votes and 16 Apache NetBeans community votes.
>
> Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) constitutes all the modules in the Apache
> NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the NetBeans Platform (i.e., the
> underlying application framework), as well as all the modules that provide
> the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
>
> In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) is a full IDE for Java SE
> development.
>
> Build artifacts available here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3
>
> The specific artifact to be voted on:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/incubating-
> netbeans-java-9.0-source.zip
>
> Included in the above are the DEPENDENCIES, DISCLAIMER, LICENSE, and
> NOTICE files, as well as a README file with build instructions, which are
> the same as these:
>
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans.git;a=blob_plain;f=README.md;h=eccd3c6cc707ba9ca219bcfb729794
> 35d85f5f7a;hb=97904961e496383d6150aef9b78fa8dff8f3e1ce
>
> SHA1: ed2098c173460ec81f05635055066da06a7ea82b
>
> KEYS file:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
>
> Apache NetBeans Git Repo tag: 9.0-vc3 :
>
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=tag;h=refs/
> tags/9.0-vc3
>
> Note: NetBeans license violation checks are managed via the
> rat-exclusions.txt file:
>
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans.git;a=blob;f=nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt;h=
> 36cb8a3eae40bd7fc41c63c6055bce42f7916859;hb=97904961e496383d6150aef9b78fa8
> dff8f3e1ce
>
> Rat report shows no unknown licenses, except for license files:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> 334/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> Included as a convenience binary, not relevant for the voting purposes
> (unzip it, run it and you'll see Apache NetBeans):
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/incubating-
> netbeans-java-9.0-bin.zip
>
> Also included as a convenience binary the NBMs:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-vc3/nbms
>
> New & Noteworthy features of the 9.0 Release:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+New+and+Noteworthy
>
> Release specific wiki page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Final+Release
>
> How (and what) to try out the release:
>
> 1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
> 2. Verify the cryptographic signatures, the NOTICE and LICENSE file
> 3. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
> 4. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by the
> build process.
> 5. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll be
> prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms, and
> (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac directly from JDK
> 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing
> to its licensing terms.
>
> If the above succeeds, vote +1 in this thread.
>
> Please try out the package, using the instructions above, and vote!
>
> The vote is open for 5 days.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating)
> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package 

Re: [ANN] Please welcome Justin Mclean as the new Incubator PMC chair!

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Congratulations and thanks for your great work and support of the Apache
NetBeans (incubating) project, looking forward to even more interactions
with you.

Gj

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Sharan Foga  wrote:

> Congratulations Justin and thanks John for all the hard work you have done!
>
> On 2018/06/04 10:12:21, Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > John D. Ament recently announced his desire to step down from the
> > Incubator PMC chair role. Thank you so much John for your efficient
> > service here, "retiring" from that is certainly well deserved!
> >
> > The Incubator PMC had the difficult task of choosing between a handful
> > of excellent candidates and has selected Justin as our new chair. The
> > ASF's Board of Directors has ratified this choice at our May meeting.
> >
> > Please join me in welcoming Jusin as our new PMC chair! Justin's been
> > very active in the Incubator in the last few years, it's great to see
> > him step up to this role.
> >
> > -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: [ANNOUNCE] Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1 released

[Geertjan Wielenga]

None?

I see this one working:

http://www-eu.apache.org/dist/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1/

...and this one:

http://www-us.apache.org/dist/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1/

I'm sure the others are still in process.

Gj



On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Michael Beck  wrote:

> None of the links listed on this page work:
>
> https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans
> -java/incubating-9.0-rc1/
>
> Michael
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@protonmail.ch]
> Sent: 28 May, 2018 16:30
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1 released
>
> The Apache NetBeans team is proud to announce the release of Apache
> NetBeans
> (incubating) 9.0 RC1.
>
> Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1 constitutes all the modules in the
> Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the NetBeans Platform
> (i.e., the underlying application framework), as well as all the modules
> that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
> In short, Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1 is a full IDE for Java SE
> development.
>
> See the below for the donation status of features that have not been
> donated
> to Apache yet, i.e., are not part of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1,
> e.g., features for working with Java EE, JavaScript, PHP, C/C++, and more:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition
>
> Details on Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+RC1
>
> Download and try out Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 RC1:
>
> https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans
> -java/incubating-9.0-rc1/
>
> Work is being done on bringing netbeans.org to Apache. In the meantime,
> refer to the below for all details related to Apache NetBeans:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS
>
> Emilian Bold
> on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC
>
> -
> 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: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Only binding votes from Ate and Bertrand thus far.

Gj


On Sunday, May 27, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > If we create an issue for removing that ZIP file, will you change your +0
> > to +1?
>
> I’ve not had a chance to go over everything yet, it’s not a small simple
> release.
>
> Remember you only need 3 +1’s binding votes (which I think you have) and
> more +1’s than -1’s to make a release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

If we create an issue for removing that ZIP file, will you change your +0
to +1?

Gj

On Sunday, May 27, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from.
>
> Sorry, many apologies, and my mistake as I looked at your last release by
> accident. Changing my vote to +0 (binding).
>
> I can still see the md5 hashes in the office release area [1] these should
> be removed (but that’s a minor issue).
>
> Re unexpected binary files it’s not open source if it contains
> unmodifiable code, that’s usually a class file in a jar file but that could
> also include things like obfuscated code or even minified JS.
>
> This RC1 for instance contains this jar [2] but as it contains no code
> that’s fine. But the _java.main.i in [3] is in a binary format and doesn’t
> seem to be compressed file.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/
> incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1-rc1/
> 2. ./autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/
> autoupdate/data/empty.jar
> 3. ./mercurial/test/qa-functional/data/JavaApp_repo.zip
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

AFAIK these have all been removed, I removed several of these myself.

Gj

On Saturday, May 26, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> >  Please check that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide and
> rat shovel pick up these issues.
>
> Correcting:
>
> Please check that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide as rat
> should pick up these issues.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

+1 (non binding)

Signatures verified after importing the 1CCF4647 key from here:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS

SHA1 digests match.

DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good.

nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt, we need to work on making it smaller, but we
have documented everything as clearly as we can.

Build with "ant" passes
Build with "ant tryme" starts the IDE.
Build with "ant rat" passes.

There are licensing issues left to be resolved, as described above by
others.

We have created issues and documented everything that needs to be done for
the final release:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+RC1

We've worked hard on this, have shown continuing commitment to the Apache
Way, and are doing everything and following everything as quickly and
correctly as possible.

We're nice people. :-)

Gj



On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Jan Lahoda  wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 2018-05-23 20:57, Emilian Bold wrote:
> >
> >> Ate, could we get a vote on this release?
> >>
> >
> > Sure :-)
> >
> >
> >> If you look at https://cwiki.apache.org/confl
> >> uence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+RC1 we are already making
> >> progress on the (non-blocking) issues reported.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, thanks for creating the follow-up issues to address the reported
> > issues.
> > With those tickets and the explanation given on my first question
> > I'm now +1 on this release candidate.
> >
> > I would like to add that I agree with Justin that, while it might not be
> > a ASF policy issue to have a GPL license file in the distribution, I
> > also don't see how it serves any purpose and only will trigger
> > unnecessary warnings or worries by users or checker tools.
> > My recommendation is to get rid of those GPL license files.
> >
>
> PR sent removing the license files:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/561
>
> Thanks,
>  Jan
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Ate
> >
> >
> >
> >> --emi
> >>
> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >>
> >> On 21 May 2018 3:54 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm inclined to vote positive on this RC1, overall looks great!
> >>>
> >>> -   verified the MD5 and SHA1, and PGP signatures with the ASC files.
> >>> -   executed rat check (ant rat) and verified the report.
> >>> -   build and run the source (using JDK8), and all seems fine.
> >>>   However I still have two questions:
> >>>   a) nbbuild/licenses folder still has the GPL license file,
> >>> which I
> >>>   thought/expected no longer should be needed with the fix from
> >>>   NETBEANS-305 [1]?
> >>>   Is there still a GPL usage left? If so this then could be a
> >>> blocker IMO.
> >>>   b) Justin provided detailed feedback on the 9.0-Beta-RC3 on
> >>> (possible)
> >>>   needed improvements/fixes for the binary dist LICENSE/NOTICE
> >>> file [2],
> >>>   thereafter recorded as a todo action list on the wiki [3]
> (end
> >>> of page).
> >>>   Some of those points have been addressed (marked DONE), but
> >>> many/most
> >>>   are not, and neither resolved/fixed (or otherwise marked as
> >>> NVT).
> >>>   As just an example, Justin noticed for the
> >>> ./ide/modules/ext/smackx.jar
> >>>   file that it included the BSD licensed JZlib, which wasn't
> >>> mentioned in
> >>>   the LICENSE file. And still isn't for this 9.0-RC1.
> >>>   I don't think any of those are blockers, but it would be good
> >>> to address
> >>>   these (create NETBEANS issues for them) before the final 9.0
> >>> release.
> >>>   Regards, Ate
> >>>   [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-305
> >>>   https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/540
> >>>   [2]
> >>>   http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
> >>> 201801.mbox/
> >>>   [3]
> >>>   https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+
> >>> NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3
> >>>   On 2018-05-21 00:33, Emilian Bold wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  Hi all,
> 
>  The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
>  release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1.
> 
>  We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
> on
>  this incubator release candidate.
> 
>  Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) vote thread:
> 
>  https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c2a06adc83e2819e6d96c7d
>  ff8d0e22a97001f99bfda12515d4d9609@
> 
>  Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) vote result thread:
> 
>  https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/94f7a5e4601e26c7edb8264
>  df7df53dd8ed215ecfc568816a162f2af@
> 
>  Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) constitutes all the modules in
> the
>  Apache 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Or at least the 2nd comment in that issue lists those licenses. I believe
they are orphaned license files with their related libraries removed or
resolved. We do need to investigate this, though I do not believe they’re a
blocker for the release candidate.

Gj

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The list of licenses in the issue are the same as yours. It is a known
> issue and discussed there, see the description of the issue, which has a
> list of licenses that matches yours.
>
> Gj
>
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > ...The license files listed in the Rat report are known and an issue
>> exists
>> >>> for solving this:
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-305 ...
>>
>> It's not clear to me whether that ticket addresses my open issue,
>> quoted below, which is not about the Rat report.
>>
>> If you think it does, please elaborate.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> >>> Open issue:
>> >>> A number of licenses mentioned in the LICENSE file are not mentioned
>> >>> at https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, have they been cleared
>> >>> and if so do we have URLs of those clearances or discussions?
>> >>>
>> >>> That's the following licenses:
>> >>> ISO-8879-SGML
>> >>> EDL-1.0
>> >>> W3C2
>> >>> OASIS
>> >>> WSDL-2004
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The list of licenses in the issue are the same as yours. It is a known
issue and discussed there, see the description of the issue, which has a
list of licenses that matches yours.

Gj

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...The license files listed in the Rat report are known and an issue
> exists
> >>> for solving this:
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-305 ...
>
> It's not clear to me whether that ticket addresses my open issue,
> quoted below, which is not about the Rat report.
>
> If you think it does, please elaborate.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> >>> Open issue:
> >>> A number of licenses mentioned in the LICENSE file are not mentioned
> >>> at https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, have they been cleared
> >>> and if so do we have URLs of those clearances or discussions?
> >>>
> >>> That's the following licenses:
> >>> ISO-8879-SGML
> >>> EDL-1.0
> >>> W3C2
> >>> OASIS
> >>> WSDL-2004
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

And the open issue is mentioned directly in the vote thread itself by
Emilian:

The license files listed in the Rat report are known and an issue exists
>> for solving this:
>
>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-305
>
>
Gj

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> See this page, most/several items are mentioned there, including the new
> splash screen:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+RC1
>
> Note that we're not working on the final release of Apache NetBeans, but
> on its release candidate.
>
> Indeed, this is confusing -- what we're voting on right now is the first
> vote of the release candidate. We don't consider an updated screenshot to
> be mandatory for the release candidate though certainly for the final
> release, as noted above.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Emilian Bold
>> <emilian.b...@protonmail.ch> wrote:
>> > We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
>> this incubator release candidate...
>>
>> -1 for the release of incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip for
>> now due to the below open issue.
>> sha1=a1a265455c8246f849b14982fa3c36b351b21876
>>
>> As mentioned, the rc1-rc1 naming is very confusing, for future
>> releases I suggest using different suffixes, maybe rc1-vc1 for "Voting
>> Candidate 1 of rc1". Does not prevent releasing but inconvenient.
>>
>> I have not looked at the convenience binaries.
>>
>> I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-851
>> "About box and splash screen don't say "Apache"" - not urgent.
>>
>> Open issue:
>> A number of licenses mentioned in the LICENSE file are not mentioned
>> at https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, have they been cleared
>> and if so do we have URLs of those clearances or discussions?
>>
>> That's the following licenses:
>> ISO-8879-SGML
>> EDL-1.0
>> W3C2
>> OASIS
>> WSDL-2004
>>
>> Here's what I checked and is ok:
>> Signatures verify after importing the 1CCF4647 key from
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
>>
>> SHA1 digests match.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good to me.
>>
>> nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt is quite big for my taste but well documented.
>>
>> I didn't find any problematic binary files in the archive, although
>> they are many of them, using the "file" command to analyze them, at
>> https://gist.github.com/bdelacretaz/fa48de8edd0e2fd0ac8c5517c1b615b7
>>
>> Build with "ant" passes
>> Build with "ant tryme" starts the IDE.
>> Build with "ant rat" passes.
>>
>> I will change to a +1 if the above open issue is resolved.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 RC1 (incubating) rc1

[Geertjan Wielenga]

See this page, most/several items are mentioned there, including the new
splash screen:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+RC1

Note that we're not working on the final release of Apache NetBeans, but on
its release candidate.

Indeed, this is confusing -- what we're voting on right now is the first
vote of the release candidate. We don't consider an updated screenshot to
be mandatory for the release candidate though certainly for the final
release, as noted above.

Gj


On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Emilian Bold
>  wrote:
> > We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
> this incubator release candidate...
>
> -1 for the release of incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip for
> now due to the below open issue.
> sha1=a1a265455c8246f849b14982fa3c36b351b21876
>
> As mentioned, the rc1-rc1 naming is very confusing, for future
> releases I suggest using different suffixes, maybe rc1-vc1 for "Voting
> Candidate 1 of rc1". Does not prevent releasing but inconvenient.
>
> I have not looked at the convenience binaries.
>
> I have created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-851
> "About box and splash screen don't say "Apache"" - not urgent.
>
> Open issue:
> A number of licenses mentioned in the LICENSE file are not mentioned
> at https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html, have they been cleared
> and if so do we have URLs of those clearances or discussions?
>
> That's the following licenses:
> ISO-8879-SGML
> EDL-1.0
> W3C2
> OASIS
> WSDL-2004
>
> Here's what I checked and is ok:
> Signatures verify after importing the 1CCF4647 key from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS
>
> SHA1 digests match.
>
> DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look good to me.
>
> nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt is quite big for my taste but well documented.
>
> I didn't find any problematic binary files in the archive, although
> they are many of them, using the "file" command to analyze them, at
> https://gist.github.com/bdelacretaz/fa48de8edd0e2fd0ac8c5517c1b615b7
>
> Build with "ant" passes
> Build with "ant tryme" starts the IDE.
> Build with "ant rat" passes.
>
> I will change to a +1 if the above open issue is resolved.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Here are the issues created as promised:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-305
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-410
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-411

Also tracked here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

Thanks again,

Gj


On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 5:26 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks a lot, these should be trivial to fix, will make issues for all and
> merge for the next release.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Friday, February 16, 2018, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I know the vote is over but you may want to fix this issues I noticed
>> before the next release:
>> - How are these wav files licensed? [8]
>> - Looks like you make have a dependancy on a 4 clause BSD license. [9]
>> That’s Category X and not allowed.
>>
>> BTW I would of voted -1 on this release as it contains compiled source
>> code [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1 ./autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupd
>> ate/data/dummy-signed-twice.jar
>> 2 ./autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/autoupd
>> ate/data/dummy-signed.jar
>> 3 ./classfile/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/classfile/dat
>> afiles/WithLambda.classx
>> 4 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/left-square.class
>> 5 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/SwitchData.class
>> 6 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/test91098.class
>> 7 ./nbi/engine/src/org/netbeans/installer/utils/applications/T
>> estJDK.class
>> 8 ./javafx2.samples/Xylophone/src/xylophone/Note?.wav
>> 9 ./incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip/spellchecker.
>> dictionary_en/external/ispell-enwl-3.1.20-license.txt
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

[ANNOUNCE] Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta released

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The Apache NetBeans team is proud to announce the release of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta.

Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta constitutes all the modules in
the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the NetBeans
Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which was
released as Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha, as well as all the
modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
In short, Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta is a full IDE for Java
SE development.

See the below for the donation status of features that have not been
donated to Apache yet, i.e., are not part of Apache NetBeans
(incubating) 9.0 Beta, e.g., features for working with Java EE,
JavaScript, PHP, C/C++, and more:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition

Note: Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta is primarily focused on IP
clearance. Its functionality has not been tested — the NetCAT
(NetBeans Community Acceptance Testing) process will begin now that
Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta has been released. Watch this
space for upcoming announcements about NetCAT. When NetCAT completes,
we will vote on the final release of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0.

Details on Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta

Download and try out Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta:

https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta/

Work is being done on bringing netbeans.org to Apache. In the
meantime, refer to the below for all details related to Apache
NetBeans:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

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

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, we split up the issues into those we would fix for the Beta release
and those for after that before but before leaving the incubator. This is
all documented on the rc3 page on our Wiki, i.e., it is clearly documented
which items we committed to fixing for Beta and which for after that and
the link to that rc3 page is explicitly stated in the vote thread.

Gj

On Friday, February 16, 2018, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I noticed a number of JIRA issue from the previous RC have not been
> resolved, including some involving IP provenance and licensing. [1][2][3] I
> assume they will be fixed in the next release?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-312
> 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-309
> 3. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-308
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks a lot, these should be trivial to fix, will make issues for all and
merge for the next release.

Gj

On Friday, February 16, 2018, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I know the vote is over but you may want to fix this issues I noticed
> before the next release:
> - How are these wav files licensed? [8]
> - Looks like you make have a dependancy on a 4 clause BSD license. [9]
> That’s Category X and not allowed.
>
> BTW I would of voted -1 on this release as it contains compiled source
> code [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1 ./autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/
> autoupdate/data/dummy-signed-twice.jar
> 2 ./autoupdate.services/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/api/
> autoupdate/data/dummy-signed.jar
> 3 ./classfile/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/classfile/
> datafiles/WithLambda.classx
> 4 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/left-square.class
> 5 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/SwitchData.class
> 6 ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/test91098.class
> 7 ./nbi/engine/src/org/netbeans/installer/utils/applications/TestJDK.class
> 8 ./javafx2.samples/Xylophone/src/xylophone/Note?.wav
> 9 ./incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip/
> spellchecker.dictionary_en/external/ispell-enwl-3.1.20-license.txt
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks to all who voted!

The release has PASSED with the following IPMC votes:

+1 Ate Douma (binding)
+1 Bertrand Delacretaz (binding)
+1 Mark Struberg (binding)

Also, 31 members of the Apache NetBeans PPMC and Apache NetBeans
community votes +1 in the PPMC vote for this release.

I will proceed to publish the release and send ANNOUNCE.

On behalf of the Apache NetBeans podling, thank you!

Geertjan



-- Forwarded message --
From: Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 10:36 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3
To: general@incubator.apache.org


Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3.

We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
on this incubator release candidate.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) constitutes all the modules
currently in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which
was released as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating), as well as all
the modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache
NetBeans. In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) is a full
IDE for Java SE development.

Just like the Alpha release, the Beta release is focused specifically
on IP clearance. With Beta, everything in Apache NetBeans Git complies
with Apache IP clearance requirements:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta

Changes between rc1 and rc2 -- binaries wrongly included in source zip
have been removed:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-276

Changes between rc2 and rc3 -- problems identified by the rc2 IPMC
vote by IPMC members Justin Mclean and John D. Ament have been solved
or issues have been created:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8e9520d5e1e365ed2337940fb629c209c63efae24b0a2e44d50412a3@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

How to try out the Beta release:

1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
2. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
3. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by
the build process.
4. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll
be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing
terms, and (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac
directly from JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install
nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms.

Take note of the Apache Rat exclusions, which are now in a separate file:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up,
you will have a Java SE development environment that complies with
Apache IP requirements.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3 vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f1c5a2a3077690f2c7785ed81c36f1ba1920efa01b26f3e7a5f32f2b@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote result thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/079f610360463621276d6d8c99979991bded812559a34eff4458a073@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

In the above, note there are two IPMC binding votes from Ate Douma and
Bertrand Delacretaz, both Apache NetBeans (incubating) mentors, and 31
non-binding votes, from PPMC members and others in the Apache NetBeans
community.

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc., as well as a
convenience binary, can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc3/

The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-beta-rc3:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-beta-rc3

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/releases/tag/9.0-beta-rc3

Also note, if tag is not identical:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/66daa753d25a482efecc5b86fdc00dc31250ca1448b533bfba82a51d@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

The release hash is:

96974a6c59957fb3d8ff18b9dd8a9323ddb00968

...which is found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc3/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip.sha1

KEYS file is available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, run and
test.

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta
(incubating) rc3:

The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBean

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Proposed solution is in the issue --

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-361

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/421

Gj

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 8:55 PM, David Jencks <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What happened to
> LEGAL-361 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-361>
> ?
>
> My impression from this issue is that the previous RC included a binary jar 
> that was mostly EPL 1.0 but had at least one file that no one knew the 
> origin, contents, or license of.  I don’t see that any progress has been made 
> on this issue, has the jar been removed from the new RC?  I just scanned a 
> couple of the links below but didn’t see any mention of this.
>
> david jencks
>
>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 1:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
>> release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3.
>>
>> We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
>> on this incubator release candidate.
>>
>> Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) constitutes all the modules
>> currently in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
>> NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which
>> was released as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating), as well as all
>> the modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache
>> NetBeans. In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) is a full
>> IDE for Java SE development.
>>
>> Just like the Alpha release, the Beta release is focused specifically
>> on IP clearance. With Beta, everything in Apache NetBeans Git complies
>> with Apache IP clearance requirements:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
>>
>> Changes between rc1 and rc2 -- binaries wrongly included in source zip
>> have been removed:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-276
>>
>> Changes between rc2 and rc3 -- problems identified by the rc2 IPMC
>> vote by IPMC members Justin Mclean and John D. Ament have been solved
>> or issues have been created:
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8e9520d5e1e365ed2337940fb629c209c63efae24b0a2e44d50412a3@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>>
>> How to try out the Beta release:
>>
>> 1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
>> 2. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
>> 3. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by
>> the build process.
>> 4. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll
>> be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing
>> terms, and (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac
>> directly from JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install
>> nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms.
>>
>> Take note of the Apache Rat exclusions, which are now in a separate file:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt
>>
>> If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up,
>> you will have a Java SE development environment that complies with
>> Apache IP requirements.
>>
>> Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3 vote thread:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f1c5a2a3077690f2c7785ed81c36f1ba1920efa01b26f3e7a5f32f2b@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>>
>> Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote result thread:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/079f610360463621276d6d8c99979991bded812559a34eff4458a073@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>>
>> In the above, note there are two IPMC binding votes from Ate Douma and
>> Bertrand Delacretaz, both Apache NetBeans (incubating) mentors, and 31
>> non-binding votes, from PPMC members and others in the Apache NetBeans
>> community.
>>
>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc., as well as a
>> convenience binary, can be found at:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc3/
>>
>> The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-beta-rc3:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-beta-rc3
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/releases/tag/9.0-beta-rc3
>>
>> Also note, if tag is not identical:
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/66daa753d25a482

[VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3.

We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
on this incubator release candidate.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) constitutes all the modules
currently in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which
was released as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating), as well as all
the modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache
NetBeans. In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) is a full
IDE for Java SE development.

Just like the Alpha release, the Beta release is focused specifically
on IP clearance. With Beta, everything in Apache NetBeans Git complies
with Apache IP clearance requirements:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta

Changes between rc1 and rc2 -- binaries wrongly included in source zip
have been removed:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-276

Changes between rc2 and rc3 -- problems identified by the rc2 IPMC
vote by IPMC members Justin Mclean and John D. Ament have been solved
or issues have been created:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8e9520d5e1e365ed2337940fb629c209c63efae24b0a2e44d50412a3@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

How to try out the Beta release:

1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
2. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
3. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by
the build process.
4. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll
be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing
terms, and (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac
directly from JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install
nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms.

Take note of the Apache Rat exclusions, which are now in a separate file:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up,
you will have a Java SE development environment that complies with
Apache IP requirements.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3 vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f1c5a2a3077690f2c7785ed81c36f1ba1920efa01b26f3e7a5f32f2b@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote result thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/079f610360463621276d6d8c99979991bded812559a34eff4458a073@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

In the above, note there are two IPMC binding votes from Ate Douma and
Bertrand Delacretaz, both Apache NetBeans (incubating) mentors, and 31
non-binding votes, from PPMC members and others in the Apache NetBeans
community.

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc., as well as a
convenience binary, can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc3/

The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-beta-rc3:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-beta-rc3

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/releases/tag/9.0-beta-rc3

Also note, if tag is not identical:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/66daa753d25a482efecc5b86fdc00dc31250ca1448b533bfba82a51d@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

The release hash is:

96974a6c59957fb3d8ff18b9dd8a9323ddb00968

...which is found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc3/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip.sha1

KEYS file is available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, run and
test.

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta
(incubating) rc3:

The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc3
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

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

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, makes sense, thanks for these insights and ideas.

Gj

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>...
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
>> This is what line 2105 says:
>>   ...
>
> Maybe grouping those exclusions by families would make it easier for
> reviewers to understand them: first the ones which are not creative,
> then those where a header would cause tests to fail etc.
>
>> ...You're saying the comment isn't needed in the README...
>
> What I'm saying is that it shouldn't be duplicated - have the README
> point to that build.xml file,or as discussed a file that just has RAT
> exclusions, and add the comments next to the exclusions, pointing to
> apache.org docs where useful.
>
>> ...can NETBEANS-306 be closed as resolved?...
>
> I suggest grouping the exclusions that fall in that family and adding
> a pointer to the Apache docs that mention that the header is not
> required if it causes tests to fail.
>
> You then get links from README -> commented RAT exclusions -> Apache
> documentation which provide a clear justification.
>
> -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: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Well, it's been a comment there, e.g., see line 2105 here:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml

This is what line 2105 says:

 

Indeed, we will pull out those exclusions into a separate file[1],
however, as can be seen, that comment is already there.

You're saying the comment isn't needed in the README then, good if so,
since that would mean less to do, though what needs to be done to
resolve the issue[2] or is it resolved by the fact that the comment
(see line 2105) is already there? I.e., can NETBEANS-306 be closed as
resolved?

[1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-318
[2]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-306

Thanks,

Gj

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> ...we propose that we add a line to the README that says:
>> "*/test/*/data folders contain test data and therefore may have no
>> license headers"
>
> I would prefer for that info to be added as comments in the file that
> defines the RAT exclusions, to give it a better chance of staying in
> sync.
>
> You can then point from the README to that file with a comment like
> "see XXX for RAT exclusions and their justifications".
>
> -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: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

We have created one of many[1] issues dedicated to data files in
*/test/*data folders.

The point is that these are all data files, used by our tests, and if
license headers were to be added the tests would fail.

E.g., some tests make use of a position in the file, which would be
different (and wrong) if a license header were to be added.

Hence this should apply:
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

And we propose that we add a line to the README that says:
"*/test/*/data folders contain test data and therefore may have no
license headers".

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-306

What needs to be done to resolve this issue?

Thanks,

Gj

[1]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 3:43 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jaroslav Tulach 
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
>> aside...
>>
>> > ...
>> > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
>> for
>>
>> > which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."
>> The
>> > problem looking at this statement vs the file actually in source:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
>> > master/diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
>> > provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
>> >
>> > It includes a license header "Sun Public License".  This line in the
>> > document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
>> > header.
>>
>>
>> Obviously a mistake. Here is a fix:
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/381
>>
>>
>> > Ultimately, at this point you can't remove the header since it's
>> > already been declared and was not included in the relicensing of Netbeans
>> > to Apache License.
>> >
>>
>> I don't understand why I should not be allowed to fix omitted ancient
>> license that hasn't been fixed yet?
>>
>
> Simply my interpretation of the fact the header wasn't fixed.  If it was an
> oversight, that's fine.
>
>
>>
>> Best regards and keep an eye on what we do! Thanks for your findings.
>> -jt
>>

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

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
>> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
>> seriously.
>>
>> It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
>> be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
>> data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
>> since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
>> that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
>> we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
>> discussed, not ignored.
>>
>
> The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things
> that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still
> acceptable for inclusion.  Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do
> it for:
>
> - build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a
> build from the source release
> - Files that are licensed as other Cat A
> - Files that can't have a header for technical reasons
>
> It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat
> exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally
> excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed.
>
> I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
> list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
> minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:
>
> - Remove the binary zip files from the source release
> - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

Gj


> - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
> license
> - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> other locations
>
>
>
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
>> > exclusions
>> > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
>> > > members evaluating a release.
>> >
>> > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
>> > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I
>> have
>> > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose
>> to
>> > ignore it.
>> >
>> > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
>> > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
>> > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
>> > on
>> > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>> >
>> > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
>> > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
>> > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
>> >
>> > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
>> > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
>> >
>> > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
>> > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
>> > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the
>> only
>> > -1.That’s how Apache works.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> > -
>> > 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: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament  wrote:

> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> > they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were
> part
> > of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are
> not
> > under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README, but
> > if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.
> >
> >
> I've seen you post this link several times now in this thread.  I
> personally have no idea what you'd like to get updated on this page, and
> the IPMC cannot help you get that updated, only the legal committee can.
>
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data for
> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."


Snip snip...


>
> Or am I miss understanding your points around changing this document?



It’s not about that document (which simply needs to be relicensed to Apache
like all other files from the donation, simply slipped through that process
somehow) but about those in Jan’s mail, i.e., the test data and pseudo code
in test/*/data folders.

Gj



>
>
> >
> > > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived
> from
> > > other locations
> > >
> >
> > I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >Jan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/
> hints/AddCast1.java
> > [2]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
> > [3]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
> > [4]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> intVarName.pass
> > [5]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
> > [6]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Gj
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > > > exclusions
> > > > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to
> > IPMC
> > > > > > members evaluating a release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> > > things.
> > > > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so
> perhaps
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course
> > choose
> > > > to
> > > > > ignore it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they
> cannot
> > > > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in
> > later
> > > > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF
> licensing
> > or
> > > > > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> > > > > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your
> > > mentors
> > > > > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be
> > totally
> > > > > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is
> > the
> > > > only
> > > > > -1.That’s how Apache works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > > 
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
seriously.

It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
discussed, not ignored.

Gj

On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> exclusions
> > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > members evaluating a release.
>
> Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
> I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I have
> some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose to
> ignore it.
>
> > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
> simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> on
> > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>
> Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
> releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
> release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
>
> > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
>
> That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
> can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
> fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the only
> -1.That’s how Apache works.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I appreciate your response and it is very clear that I am not making that
argument at all. And no it does not suck at all to do due diligence — that
is whh we are here: we want a product with healthy IP. And we appreciate
Justin’s thorough IP review, a lot. However, I would like it to be affirmed
that rat exclusions should be discussed and not simply ignored. Otherwise,
we should simply not do rat exclusions at all.

Gj

On Monday, January 22, 2018, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the
> past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early
> releases from a new podling.
>
> The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have
> to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and
> for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for
> the purpose of hiding serious problems.
>
> No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
> RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history
> outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to
> have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before
> release.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> exclusions
> > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
> > exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> on
> > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> >
> > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
> > to advise on their perspective on this too.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of
> course,
> > > > what
> > > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting
> point
> > > > would
> > > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > > > running
> > > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and
> > can
> > > > > start discussions from the same basis.
> > > >
> > > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this
> > case
> > > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file
> I
> > > > can’t see it in the source release.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The exclusions start here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
> > >
> > > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
> > >
> > > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests
> to
> > > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers
> > in
> > > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so
> if
> > > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the
> > FAQ
> > > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> > > discussions for others in the future.
> > >
> > > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE?
> For
> > > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> > > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >Jan
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing
> > licenses,
> > > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code)
> so
> > my
> > > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote
> is
> > > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than
> > -1s
> > > > then it’s a release.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > > 
> -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.

I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
to advise on their perspective on this too.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are
> > not
> > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> > what
> > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> > would
> > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > running
> > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> > > start discussions from the same basis.
> >
> > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case
> > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> > can’t see it in the source release.
> >
>
> The exclusions start here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
>
> (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
>
> I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to
> fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers in
> case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if
> that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the FAQ
> may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> discussions for others in the future.
>
> Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For
> example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
>
> Thanks,
>Jan
>
>
> >
> > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses,
> > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my
> > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s
> > then it’s a release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The exclusions are in the build.xml in github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans.

I am quite sure that the rat exclusions are set too wide, at this point,
the idea being to resolve those over the coming releases bit by bit.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are
> not
> > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> what
> > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> would
> > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> running
> > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> > start discussions from the same basis.
>
> A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case
> it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> can’t see it in the source release.
>
> IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses,
> category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my
> vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s
> then it’s a release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are not
visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course, what
we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point would
be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when running
rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
start discussions from the same basis.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Yes, we excluded test/*/data directories via rat exclusions on the basis
> that files within them are test data and hence can be excluded. There is no
> test code here. At worst, as pointed out below, there’s pseudo code.
>
> Gj
>
> On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
>> > > removed), to avoid further confusion?
>> >
>> > It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not
>> > test code.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. I guess I wonder about which specific files we are talking here. If
>> it
>> is e.g.:
>> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
>> org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
>> or:
>> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/projects/Refactorin
>> gTest/src/introduceParameter/Class_A_A.java
>> or:
>> java.hints/test/unit/data/javahints/AbstractError1.java
>>
>> then these are test data (they are in test/*/data directories), not test
>> code. They are a (semi) Java source code, as the Java related features run
>> on "Java" source code, so that's what we need for testing.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, we excluded test/*/data directories via rat exclusions on the basis
that files within them are test data and hence can be excluded. There is no
test code here. At worst, as pointed out below, there’s pseudo code.

Gj

On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Jan Lahoda  wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
> > > removed), to avoid further confusion?
> >
> > It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not
> > test code.
> >
>
> Yes. I guess I wonder about which specific files we are talking here. If it
> is e.g.:
> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
> org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
> or:
> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/projects/RefactoringTest/src/
> introduceParameter/Class_A_A.java
> or:
> java.hints/test/unit/data/javahints/AbstractError1.java
>
> then these are test data (they are in test/*/data directories), not test
> code. They are a (semi) Java source code, as the Java related features run
> on "Java" source code, so that's what we need for testing.
>
> Jan
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi Justin,

Many thanks for your thorough review, by the end of this we’re really going
to have a release that is excellently IP-cleared.

Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
their take on your review too. Just curious, that’s all, how they evaluate
your points. Also note that the link to the PPMC vote thread provides a
link to the Ant Rat results, not sure why you’re getting different results.

Many thanks again,

Gj

On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justing,
>
> It’s Justin actually.
>
> > Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other
> > things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple
> > or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case
> > the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the
> only
> > system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to
> > handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files
> that
> > would cause tests fail may have no license header:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions <
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
>
> IMO If it's code it should have a header, having 700+ files without
> headers makes it very hard to find other files which are missing headers.
>
> > There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a
> > dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release
> files.
>
> OK (and that may be totally fine) but it's confusing to have the  license
> in the source release if that code is not a dependancy or bundled.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin

[VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2.

We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
on this incubator release candidate.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) constitutes all the modules
currently in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which
was released as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating), as well as all
the
modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) is a full IDE for Java
SE development.

Just like the Alpha release, the Beta release is focused specifically
on IP clearance. With Beta, everything in Apache NetBeans Git complies
with Apache IP clearance requirements:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta

Changes between rc1 and rc2 -- binaries wrongly included in source zip
have been removed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-276

How to try out the Beta release:

1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
2. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
3. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by
the build process.
4. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll
be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing
terms, and (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac
directly from JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install
nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms.

If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up,
you will have a Java SE development environment that complies with
Apache IP requirements.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/796200c149232ba2da722c6d4b1310307708e09b2afa77eb90ecaebc@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote result thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff699b382e5498ca41e56315c9b97de83b3a625140b0ba451f828cfb@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc., as well as a
convenience binary, can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc2/

The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-beta-rc2:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-beta-rc2

The release hash is:

808faea759d76b6d0e27512fbf36e9e22d5d4c65

...which is found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc2/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip.sha1

KEYS file available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS

During the PPMC vote, an item was identified, though did not prevent +1 votes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-283

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, run and
test.

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta
(incubating) rc2:

The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

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

[RESULT][Vote] Release of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha [RC2]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Dear IPMC Community,

I am pleased to announce that the Incubator PMC has approved the release of
Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha rc2.

The vote has passed with:
four binding "+1" votes
no "0" votes
no "-1" votes

The votes were

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ae06af5a10d99a14e35a0fee8a8e35e91505b85293549f8152a075d4@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

+1, Bertrand Delacretaz (binding)
+1, Ate Douma (binding)
+1, Matt Franklin (binding)
+1, Mark Struberg

Thank you for your support!

We'll continue with the release now.

Geertjan,
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

[Vote] Release of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha [RC2]

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha rc2.

We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on
this incubator release candidate.

Apache NetBeans (incubating) is an open source development environment,
tooling platform, and application framework. Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0
Alpha constitutes the modules of Apache NetBeans (incubating) that provide
the application framework of Apache NetBeans, that is, the Apache NetBeans
Platform, which is used by a diverse range of organizations, some of which
are listed here:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/on+top+of+NetBeans

Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a2ee0c199a4f742b22249d7993233465e18bc8252a665af37f75728e@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Alpha vote result thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/278b3bd85eaeec8718dee95f9b2b2c2c7656544fb5b504f6b8e2632c@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-platform/incubating-9.0-alpha/

The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-alpha-rc2:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-alpha-rc2

The release hash is:

1189b293cecfd5236cf18df2c2bd0f6b414dab75

...which is found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-platform/incubating-9.0-alpha/incubating-netbeans-platform-9.0-alpha-source.zip.sha1

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
753AD8D8DF507D7232A9BDBD9B403B9B1BFBCC23

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

During the PPMC vote, some items were identified, though did not prevent +1
votes:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/278
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-157

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, run and test.

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0
Alpha:

The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 (incubating) Alpha
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,
Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5 of NetBeans HTML/Java API

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Many thanks -- so, right now, Bertrand, John, and Mark have done binding
votes -- i.e., two of our mentors and the VP Incubator.

How many binding votes are needed or is it simply a question of time, i.e.,
at the time that the vote expires, if there's no -1, and only +1 binding
votes, then the release of this specific repo that is one of the repose of
Apache NetBeans is approved?

Thanks,

Gj

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> +1 IPMC binding
>
> LICENSE, NOTICE, rat, dependencies, signing, etc all looks good.
>
> However when building it from the distribution zip on my macbook with
> java8 144 I sometimes get test errors.
> All of them in knockout.js, but each time something different:
>
>
> Configuring TestNG with: TestNG652Configurator
> Oct 21, 2017 1:55:53 PM org.glassfish.grizzly.http.server.NetworkListener
> start
> INFORMATION: Started listener bound to [0.0.0.0:18572]
> Oct 21, 2017 1:55:53 PM org.glassfish.grizzly.http.server.HttpServer start
> INFORMATION: [HttpServer] Started.
> Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 6.451 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
> displayContentOfComputedArrayOnComputedASubpair(org.netbeans.html.ko4j.KOFx)
> Time elapsed: 0.03 sec  <<< FAILURE!
> java.lang.AssertionError: We got callback from 2nd child null expecting:
> null actual: Last
> at net.java.html.json.tests.Utils.assertEquals(Utils.java:217)
> at net.java.html.json.tests.KnockoutTest.
> displayContentOfComputedArrayOnComputedASubpair(KnockoutTest.java:622)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at org.netbeans.html.ko4j.KOFx.run(KOFx.java:73)
>
>
> Tests run: 78, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 7.772 sec
> <<< FAILURE!
> rawObject(org.netbeans.html.ko4j.KOFx)  Time elapsed: 0.067 sec  <<<
> FAILURE!
> netscape.javascript.JSException: netscape.javascript.JSException:
> java.lang.NullPointerException
> at org.netbeans.html.ko4j.$JsCallbacks$.raw$org_netbeans_
> html_ko4j_Knockout$setValue$ILjava_lang_Object_2($JsCallbacks$.java:156)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at sun.reflect.misc.Trampoline.invoke(MethodUtil.java:71)
> at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor1.invoke(Unknown Source)
> at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
> at sun.reflect.misc.MethodUtil.invoke(MethodUtil.java:275)
> at com.sun.webkit.Utilities.lambda$fwkInvokeWithContext$
> 60(Utilities.java:94)
> at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
> at com.sun.webkit.Utilities.fwkInvokeWithContext(
> Utilities.java:94)
> at com.sun.webkit.dom.JSObject.callImpl(Native Method)
> at com.sun.webkit.dom.JSObject.call(JSObject.java:115)
> at org.netbeans.html.boot.fx.AbstractFXPresenter$JSFn.invokeImpl(
> AbstractFXPresenter.java:418)
>
> Failed tests:
>   KOFx.run:73 » JS netscape.javascript.JSException:
> java.lang.NullPointerExcepti...
>
>
> Running the build for the forth time made it succeed.
> I'd say it's not a blocker for the release, but we might improve the test
> setup.
>
>
> txs for rolling the release!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 21.10.2017 um 14:04 schrieb John D. Ament :
> >
> > Here's my +1 to release.
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 8:43 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
> >>  wrote:
> >>> ...I'd like to ask you to hold the Incubator
> >>> PMC vote to release:..
> >>
> >> Here's my +1 repeated from the podling list for
> >>
> >> SHA1(incubating-netbeans-html4j-1.5.zip)=
> >> fd77975f1adbcbc4b926e1cfab6865f47db6df3c
> >>
> >> Jaroslav's GPG key is included in
> >> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/netbeans.asc
> >>
> >> -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: Write access to Incubator Wiki

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Done.

Gj

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Willem Jiang 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> May I have the write access  of Incubator wiki for editing the page of
> incubator?
>
> My name is njiang,  email is ningji...@apache.org
>
> Thanks,
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Blog: http://willemjiang.blogspot.com (English)
>   http://jnn.iteye.com  (Chinese)
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - September 2017

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Makes sense, was missing your reminders, now I know why. Looking forward to
reporting again, heaps will have happened in the interim.

Gj

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 at 12:28, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:40 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> >
> > Geertjan,
> > >
> > > What if we add a note under Legal, something like:
> > >
> > > - Thanks to hard work on both the Oracle and ASF side, the Netbeans
> team
> > > was able to get the first three repositories populated from a software
> > > grant.
> > >
> > > ?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Great!
> >
> > Out of curiosity -- how often must a project report formally in the board
> > report? I.e., how often is there a predefined section in there for a
> > specific project for that project to fill in?
> >
>
> New projects report monthly for their first 3 months, then move to a
> quarterly cycle.  If things line up properly, that means they end up with 4
> months in a row of reporting.  It's a way for us to check early on if they
> are holding on for the ride, so to speak.
>
> That's why you don't get emails from "me" every month.
>
> If you miss a month, you need to report the following.  If you miss too
> many months, we get worried.
>
>
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi -
> > >
> > > It looks like they are still waiting for the SGA and have only setup
> > > mailing lists. They are not really having discussions yet, but did
> three
> > > non-Apache releases. A little slow ...
> > >
> > > Taylor was pushing on the slowness recently on private@
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:24 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:02 PM Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Pulsar is now signed off and also shepherd notes done.
> > > >>
> > > >> Heron is a little slow moving over should we keep them monthly until
> > the
> > > >> repos is moved?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts on why Heron may be slow moving?  I'd like to understand
> > the
> > > > problem(s) first before condemning them to monthly reporting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Dave
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll be signing Pulsar shortly.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sent from my iPhone
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:38 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org
> >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> All,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Below please find the revised report.  I'm extremely happy to see
> > two
> > > of
> > > >>>> the missing podlings reported.  Hopefully we can get the remaining
> > > sign
> > > >>>> offs in place (Griffin & Pulsar).  Hopefully Spot can file a
> report
> > as
> > > >> well.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Incubator PMC report for September 2017
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The Apache Incubator is the entry path into the ASF for projects
> and
> > > >>>> codebases wishing to become part of the Foundation's efforts.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> There are currently 54 podlings incubating.  We executed nine
> > podling
> > > >>>> releases and have one podling planning to graduate this month.  No
> > > >> changes
> > > >>>> to the PMC structure this month.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * Community
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> New IPMC members:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> - None
> > > >>>>
> > >

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - September 2017

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:23 AM, John D. Ament wrote:

Geertjan,
>
> What if we add a note under Legal, something like:
>
> - Thanks to hard work on both the Oracle and ASF side, the Netbeans team
> was able to get the first three repositories populated from a software
> grant.
>
> ?
>


Great!

Out of curiosity -- how often must a project report formally in the board
report? I.e., how often is there a predefined section in there for a
specific project for that project to fill in?

Gj


On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
>
> It looks like they are still waiting for the SGA and have only setup
> mailing lists. They are not really having discussions yet, but did three
> non-Apache releases. A little slow ...
>
> Taylor was pushing on the slowness recently on private@
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 5:24 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 6:02 PM Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pulsar is now signed off and also shepherd notes done.
> >>
> >> Heron is a little slow moving over should we keep them monthly until the
> >> repos is moved?
> >>
> >
> > Any thoughts on why Heron may be slow moving?  I'd like to understand the
> > problem(s) first before condemning them to monthly reporting.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>> On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'll be signing Pulsar shortly.
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:38 PM, John D. Ament 
> >> wrote:
> 
>  All,
> 
>  Below please find the revised report.  I'm extremely happy to see two
> of
>  the missing podlings reported.  Hopefully we can get the remaining
> sign
>  offs in place (Griffin & Pulsar).  Hopefully Spot can file a report as
> >> well.
> 
>  Incubator PMC report for September 2017
> 
>  The Apache Incubator is the entry path into the ASF for projects and
>  codebases wishing to become part of the Foundation's efforts.
> 
>  There are currently 54 podlings incubating.  We executed nine podling
>  releases and have one podling planning to graduate this month.  No
> >> changes
>  to the PMC structure this month.
> 
>  * Community
> 
>  New IPMC members:
> 
>  - None
> 
>  People who left the IPMC:
> 
>  - None
> 
>  * New Podlings
> 
>  - Amaterasu
>  - Daffodil
> 
>  * Podlings that Retired
> 
>  - MRQL
> 
>  * Podlings that failed to report, expected next month
> 
>  - Myriad
>  - Spot
> 
>  * Reports Missing Sign off
> 
>  - Griffin
>  - Pulsar
> 
>  * Graduations
> 
>  The board has motions for the following:
> 
>  - RocketMQ
>  - Your podling here?
> 
>  * Releases
> 
>  The following releases entered distribution during the month of
>  August:
> 
>  - 2017-08-01 Apache Juneau 6.3.1
>  - 2017-08-01 Apache Tamaya 0.3.0
>  - 2017-08-05 Apache Tamaya Extensions 0.3.0
>  - 2017-08-08 Apache Pulsar 1.19.0
>  - 2017-08-16 Apache HTrace 4.3.0
>  - 2017-08-16 Apache Spot 1.0
>  - 2017-08-17 Apache Fluo 1.0.0
>  - 2017-08-23 Apache S2Graph 0.2.0
>  - 2017-08-29 Apache Livy 0.4.0
> 
>  * IP Clearance
> 
> 
> 
>  * Legal / Trademarks
> 
> 
> 
>  * Infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
>  * Miscellaneous
> 
> 
> 
>  * Credits
> 
>  
> --
>  Table of Contents
>  AriaTosca
>  Daffodil
>  Gearpump
>  Gobblin
>  Griffin
>  Heron
>  Hivemall
>  HTrace
>  Livy
>  Mnemonic
>  MRQL
>  Myriad
>  Omid
>  OpenWhisk
>  Pony Mail
>  Pulsar
>  Quickstep
>  SAMOA
>  SINGA
>  Spot
>  Superset
>  Taverna
>  Tephra
>  Trafodion
>  Wave
> 
>  
> --
> 
>  
>  AriaTosca
> 
>  ARIA TOSCA project offers an easily consumable Software Development
> >> Kit(SDK)
>  and a Command Line Interface(CLI) to implement TOSCA(Topology and
>  Orchestration Specification of Cloud Applications) based solutions.
> 
>  AriaTosca has been incubating since 2016-08-27.
> 
>  Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
> 
>  1. Grow the community and enroll new committers.
>  2. Rotate Release Managers for future releases.
>  3.
> 
>  Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
>  aware of?
> 
> 
> 
>  How has the community developed since the last report?
> 
>  Seeing 

Re: [DRAFT] Incubator PMC Board Report - September 2017

[Geertjan Wielenga]

NetBeans went through some developments during this past month, not sure
where that would fit, maybe a place can be added for it and we'll fill in
the details?

Gj

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:02 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Pulsar is now signed off and also shepherd notes done.
>
> Heron is a little slow moving over should we keep them monthly until the
> repos is moved?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:40 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
> >
> > I'll be signing Pulsar shortly.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Sep 12, 2017, at 2:38 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> Below please find the revised report.  I'm extremely happy to see two of
> >> the missing podlings reported.  Hopefully we can get the remaining sign
> >> offs in place (Griffin & Pulsar).  Hopefully Spot can file a report as
> well.
> >>
> >> Incubator PMC report for September 2017
> >>
> >> The Apache Incubator is the entry path into the ASF for projects and
> >> codebases wishing to become part of the Foundation's efforts.
> >>
> >> There are currently 54 podlings incubating.  We executed nine podling
> >> releases and have one podling planning to graduate this month.  No
> changes
> >> to the PMC structure this month.
> >>
> >> * Community
> >>
> >> New IPMC members:
> >>
> >> - None
> >>
> >> People who left the IPMC:
> >>
> >> - None
> >>
> >> * New Podlings
> >>
> >> - Amaterasu
> >> - Daffodil
> >>
> >> * Podlings that Retired
> >>
> >> - MRQL
> >>
> >> * Podlings that failed to report, expected next month
> >>
> >> - Myriad
> >> - Spot
> >>
> >> * Reports Missing Sign off
> >>
> >> - Griffin
> >> - Pulsar
> >>
> >> * Graduations
> >>
> >> The board has motions for the following:
> >>
> >> - RocketMQ
> >> - Your podling here?
> >>
> >> * Releases
> >>
> >> The following releases entered distribution during the month of
> >> August:
> >>
> >> - 2017-08-01 Apache Juneau 6.3.1
> >> - 2017-08-01 Apache Tamaya 0.3.0
> >> - 2017-08-05 Apache Tamaya Extensions 0.3.0
> >> - 2017-08-08 Apache Pulsar 1.19.0
> >> - 2017-08-16 Apache HTrace 4.3.0
> >> - 2017-08-16 Apache Spot 1.0
> >> - 2017-08-17 Apache Fluo 1.0.0
> >> - 2017-08-23 Apache S2Graph 0.2.0
> >> - 2017-08-29 Apache Livy 0.4.0
> >>
> >> * IP Clearance
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Legal / Trademarks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Infrastructure
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Miscellaneous
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Credits
> >>
> >> --
> >>  Table of Contents
> >> AriaTosca
> >> Daffodil
> >> Gearpump
> >> Gobblin
> >> Griffin
> >> Heron
> >> Hivemall
> >> HTrace
> >> Livy
> >> Mnemonic
> >> MRQL
> >> Myriad
> >> Omid
> >> OpenWhisk
> >> Pony Mail
> >> Pulsar
> >> Quickstep
> >> SAMOA
> >> SINGA
> >> Spot
> >> Superset
> >> Taverna
> >> Tephra
> >> Trafodion
> >> Wave
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 
> >> AriaTosca
> >>
> >> ARIA TOSCA project offers an easily consumable Software Development
> Kit(SDK)
> >> and a Command Line Interface(CLI) to implement TOSCA(Topology and
> >> Orchestration Specification of Cloud Applications) based solutions.
> >>
> >> AriaTosca has been incubating since 2016-08-27.
> >>
> >> Three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation:
> >>
> >> 1. Grow the community and enroll new committers.
> >> 2. Rotate Release Managers for future releases.
> >> 3.
> >>
> >> Any issues that the Incubator PMC (IPMC) or ASF Board wish/need to be
> >> aware of?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> How has the community developed since the last report?
> >>
> >> Seeing some contributions now from independent developers.
> >> Active discussions on mailing lists with potential users and
> contributors.
> >>
> >> How has the project developed since the last report?
> >>
> >> The project has had its first two releases in July 2017 - 0.1 and 0.1.1
> >>
> >> Important new features have been added:
> >>  - Resumable workflows
> >>  - Scaling nodes during service creation
> >>  - AWS plugin support
> >>  - Additional work towards being more TOSCA-compliant (e.g. interface
> >> inputs support)
> >>  - Additional usage examples have been added, including ones that use
> >> IaaS plugins (Openstack, AWS), as well as one covering a real-life NFV
> >> use-case (Clearwater example)
> >>  - More comprehensive tests, including for documentation generation, and
> >> parallelization of test suites
> >>  - Standardized the release process with automatic shell scripts,
> >> allowing anyone to easily create additional releases for the project
> >>  - 64 JIRA issues have been resolved since the last report
> >>
> >> How would you assess the podling's maturity?
> >> Please feel free to add your own commentary.
> >>
> >> [ ] Initial setup
> >> [ ] Working towards first release
> >> [X] Community building
> >> [ ] Nearing graduation
> >> [ ] Other:
> >>
> >> Date of 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Netbeans - Exception Reporter

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yup, we need to include it in the transition in some way and will need to
list in the Wiki once we have set that up.

Gj

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 8:02 PM, cowwoc  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One of the main feature I value in the Netbeans infrastructure is the
> automated exception reporter. I've reported thousands of bug reports to
> date
> (many of which were fixed) and I don't think I would have had the energy to
> do so without this feature.
>
> I didn't think to bring this up before the vote, but what is the plan for
> this functionality? Will this be supported under the Apache infrastructure?
> Or will users be expected to enter all bug reports + stack-traces by hand?
>
> Thank you,
> Gili
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-incubator-
> general.996316.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Apache-Netbeans-
> Exception-Reporter-tp51883.html
> Sent from the Apache Incubator - General mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: NetBeans next steps

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Or maybe a list of names could be provided of those who have already sent
in there ICLAs for Apache NetBeans (incubating)? And those could then enter
the process of having their accounts created manually.

Gj

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> OK, thanks, will work with Wade and others who may be encountering this.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Wade,
>>
>> ICLAs submitted before the vote don't get accounts created automatically.
>> Please reach out to your mentors to get your account created.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2016 06:06, "Wade Chandler" <cons...@wadechandler.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I have sent in my ICLA, and I received an acknowledgement it was
>> received
>> > and filed in the records. I have not received any other to suggest an ID
>> > was created. When does that usually happen? Not a rush, but just so I
>> know
>> > the protocol.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Wade
>> >
>> > On Oct 1, 2016 11:35 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bdelacre...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi NetBeans mentors and initial committers,
>> > >
>> > > As per [0] I have updated podlings.xml and requested creation of the
>> > > dev, users, commits and private lists via
>> > > https://infra.apache.org/officers/mlreq/incubator, with Geertjan and
>> > > myself as moderators [4] for now. I just took care of steps 1 to 3
>> > > from [0] so far. I'll be mostly offline until Tuesday morning, if
>> > > other mentors can take care of the remaining steps please go ahead!
>> > >
>> > > We will announce the availability of these lists here once they are
>> > > created, along with subscription information. Everybody can subscribe
>> > > to these lists except for the private one for which we'll send
>> > > instructions to the dev list separately. But please wait for the lists
>> > > to be created before subscribing, obviously ;-)
>> > >
>> > > NetBeans initial committers are welcome to already send in their iCLA
>> > > [1] as well as cCLA [2] if desired. The iCLA is required to get an
>> > > Apache account, while cCLA is between you and your employer but not
>> > > required by the ASF. See [3] for which Apache IDs are already taken.
>> > >
>> > > -Bertrand
>> > >
>> > > [0] https://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact#requesting-podling
>> > > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> > > [2] https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>> > > [3] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>> > > [4] https://reference.apache.org/pmc/ml
>> > >
>> > > -
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: NetBeans next steps

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK, thanks, will work with Wade and others who may be encountering this.

Gj

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 12:20 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Wade,
>
> ICLAs submitted before the vote don't get accounts created automatically.
> Please reach out to your mentors to get your account created.
>
> John
>
> On Oct 3, 2016 06:06, "Wade Chandler"  wrote:
>
> > I have sent in my ICLA, and I received an acknowledgement it was received
> > and filed in the records. I have not received any other to suggest an ID
> > was created. When does that usually happen? Not a rush, but just so I
> know
> > the protocol.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Wade
> >
> > On Oct 1, 2016 11:35 AM, "Bertrand Delacretaz" 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi NetBeans mentors and initial committers,
> > >
> > > As per [0] I have updated podlings.xml and requested creation of the
> > > dev, users, commits and private lists via
> > > https://infra.apache.org/officers/mlreq/incubator, with Geertjan and
> > > myself as moderators [4] for now. I just took care of steps 1 to 3
> > > from [0] so far. I'll be mostly offline until Tuesday morning, if
> > > other mentors can take care of the remaining steps please go ahead!
> > >
> > > We will announce the availability of these lists here once they are
> > > created, along with subscription information. Everybody can subscribe
> > > to these lists except for the private one for which we'll send
> > > instructions to the dev list separately. But please wait for the lists
> > > to be created before subscribing, obviously ;-)
> > >
> > > NetBeans initial committers are welcome to already send in their iCLA
> > > [1] as well as cCLA [2] if desired. The iCLA is required to get an
> > > Apache account, while cCLA is between you and your employer but not
> > > required by the ASF. See [3] for which Apache IDs are already taken.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> > >
> > > [0] https://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact#requesting-podling
> > > [1] https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > [2] https://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> > > [3] http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
> > > [4] https://reference.apache.org/pmc/ml
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:39 PM, jag wrote:

> +1  (expressing unbridled enthusiasm and glee!!)


Note: The above is James Gosling. :-)

- Gj

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:39 PM, jag  wrote:

> +1  (expressing unbridled enthusiasm and glee!!)
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-incubator-
> general.996316.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Accept-NetBeans-into-the-
> Apache-Incubator-tp51613p51725.html
> Sent from the Apache Incubator - General mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

[Geertjan Wielenga]

endencies ==
> > NetBeans is a large project with multiple dependencies and some changes
> > may be
> > needed during incubation to comply with Apache requirements.
> >
> > https://netbeans.org/downloads/licence/8.1/nb81-THIRDPARTYLICENSE.txt
> >
> > Identifying which dependencies are core and non-core will be needed as
> > part of
> > the process in meeting Apache requirements about third-party
> dependencies.
> > (L)GPL (and possibly other) based dependencies and usages will need to be
> > reviewed, and solved, as Apache does not allow (L)GPL dependencies,
> > although
> > these concerns can be resolved during incubation, and are not upfront
> > blockers.
> >
> > == Required Resources ==
> >
> >   * Mailing Lists: dev, user, committs, and private @netbeans.apache.org
> >   * Wiki
> >   * Website
> >   * Source Control: Git
> >   * Issue Tracking
> >   * Release Infrastructure - Hudson/Jenkins, etc
> >
> > === Specific Infrastructure Requests ===
> >
> >   * SIR01 Migration of large existing Mercurial repository to Apache Git
> >   * SIR02 Migration of internal Oracle release infrastructure to Apache
> > infrastructure
> >   * SIR04 Migration of website and related content management system to
> > Apache
> > infrastructure
> >   * SIR05 Evaluation and identification of other NetBeans infrastructure
> > to be
> > migrated to Apache infastructures
> >
> > SIR03 was initially mentioned as the migration of plugins.netbeans.org
> to
> > Apache
> > infrastructure but after discussing the proposal we have decided to
> remove
> > that
> > goal for now.
> > The plugins service will eventually have to migrate, but that can happen
> > separately from the project incubation process.
> >
> > == Initial Committers ==
> >
> > Below is the initial list of individual contributors, while more
> individual
> > contributors will be added during incubation.
> >
> > ASF members with a specific interest in the project are welcome to
> request
> > being
> > added to this list of initial committers.
> >
> > After the project has been accepted and started in the incubator,
> > additional
> > committers can join, as usual, based upon their merit in the project.
> >
> > *Bold* means that there has already been code contributed to NetBeans,
> > while
> > those without bold means that the contributor has an intention to
> > contribute to
> > Apache NetBeans while not having done so before. That does not mean that
> > those
> > in bold are better or worse, just that they'll be able to get started
> more
> > quickly in Apache NetBeans since they've worked with the NetBeans source
> > code
> > before.
> >
> > Note: Some of the individual contributors listed below belong in multiple
> > different categories, e.g., NetBeans Dream Team members are often
> NetBeans
> > plugin developers too, etc, while some of those in the NetBeans Platform
> > customers category are also NetBeans Dream Team members, etc.
> >
> >   * Individual contributors from the NetBeans team at Oracle.
> >1. *Dusan Balek*
> >2. *Jaroslav Havlin*
> >3. *Jiri Kovalsky*
> >4. *Jiri Prox*
> >5. *Jiri Sedlacek*
> >6. *Jiri Skrivanek*
> >7. *Libor Fischmeister*
> >8. *Martin Balin*
> >9. *Martin Entlicher*
> >   10. *Miloslav Metelka*
> >   11. *Milutin Kristofic*
> >   12. *Ondrej Vrabec*
> >   13. *Petr Gebauer*
> >   14. *Petr Hejl*
> >   15. *Petr Pisl*
> >   16. *Svatopluk Dedic*
> >   17. *Tomas Hurka*
> >   18. *Tomas Mysik*
> >   19. *Tomas Stupka*
> >   20. *Tomas Zezula*
> >
> >   * Individual contributors from the Oracle Developer Studio team at
> > Oracle.
> >1. *Alexander Simon*
> >2. *Danila Sergeyev*
> >3. *Dmitry Zharkov*
> >4. Don Kretsch
> >5. *Ilia Gromov*
> >6. Liang Chen
> >7. *Maria Dalmatova*
> >8. *Petr Kudriavtsev*
> >9. *Vladimir Kvashin*
> >   10. *Vladimir Voskresensky*
> >
> >   * Individual contributors from the Oracle JET team at Oracle.
> >1. *Geertjan Wielenga*
> >2. *John Brock*
> >
> >   * Individual contributors from the Oracle Labs team at Oracle.
> >1. *Jaroslav Tulach*
> >2. Thomas Wuerthinger
> >
> >   * Individual contributors from the Java Platform Group at Oracle.
> >1. *Jan Lahoda*
> >
> >   * Individual contributor

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Geertjan Wielenga]

This would be brilliant. Make it happen!

Gj

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Jaroslav Tulach 
wrote:

> On sobota 24. září 2016 12:17:21 CEST, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
>
> Hi.
> One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
> repository
> more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is
> operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
> Apache. As such the Maven central could be a natural place to upload
> NetBeans
> related binaries.
>
> NetBeans already knows how to produce Maven artifacts and there is a
> NetBeans
> Maven repository: http://bits.netbeans.org/nexus/content/groups/netbeans/
>
> In addition to that we could modify the http://plugins.netbeans.org to be
> just
> a catalog over bits available in Maven central.
>
> There are also the [3rd party binaries used during NetBeans build](http://
> hg.netbeans.org/binaries/) - most of them available from Maven central. I
> already [created a patch](http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/rev/3178d0a561c8)
> to
> allow such download and it seems to work.
>
> Would downloading bits from Maven repository address the legal and
> infrastructure issues?
>
> It might, right? Legal issues of hosting bits at maven.org are probably
> well
> understood. The storage capacity is high. Download is instant. Maven
> repository is the natural storage for Apache projects. If my observations
> are
> true, let's start of modifying NetBeans to use Maven central more.
>
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Platform Architect
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>

Re: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "NetBeansProposal" by GeertjanWielenga

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yup. I stand corrected and have deleted. :-)

Gj

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:39 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Its generally not good practice to edit the proposal once the vote has
> started.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:38 PM Apache Wiki  wrote:
>
> > Dear Wiki user,
> >
> > You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Incubator Wiki"
> > for change notification.
> >
> > The "NetBeansProposal" page has been changed by GeertjanWielenga:
> >
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal?
> action=diff=55=56
> >
> > 1. '''Dmitry Zharkov'''
> > 1. Don Kretsch
> > 1. '''Ilia Gromov'''
> > -   1. '''Ivan Soleimanipour'''
> > 1. Liang Chen
> > 1. '''Maria Dalmatova'''
> > 1. '''Petr Kudriavtsev'''
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: cvs-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: cvs-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yup. We're really lucky to have the group of mentors that we've been given.
They're our first port of call, as observed in the discussion re the
initial committers list.

Thanks, Bertrand, Ate, Jim, Emmanuel, Daniel, and Mark -- there's a long
road ahead and your insights are going to be invaluable!

Gj

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:

> On 2016-09-28 00:50, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Bertrand, not Ate, though I feel they're in sync.
>>
>
> In this case, you felt right :-)
>
> Syncing with the mentors would have been appreciated, but I also
> see no harm done in Roman's trying to help out.
>
> Thanks Roman!
>
> Ate
>
>
>> Gj
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Geertjan Wielenga <
>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> From the NetBeans side, we appreciate Roman's callibration and Jim's
>>> transparency and Ate's diplomacy.
>>>
>>> Onwards.
>>>
>>> Gj
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacre...@apache.org
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bdelacre...@apache.org');>> wrote:
>>>
>>> (removing board@ which has nothing to do with this)
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <
>>>> ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...Putting aside the amount of personal time I've spent on the phone,
>>>>> online, etc. trying to help this community calibrate their expectations
>>>>> about transition to ASF, I must say this:..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if some NetBeans community members had incorrect information and
>>>> you stepped in to fix that, the only thing I can say is: thank you
>>>> Roman!
>>>>
>>>> -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: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Sorry, Bertrand, not Ate, though I feel they're in sync.

Gj


On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> From the NetBeans side, we appreciate Roman's callibration and Jim's
> transparency and Ate's diplomacy.
>
> Onwards.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bdelacre...@apache.org');>> wrote:
>
>> (removing board@ which has nothing to do with this)
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>> wrote:
>> > ...Putting aside the amount of personal time I've spent on the phone,
>> > online, etc. trying to help this community calibrate their expectations
>> > about transition to ASF, I must say this:..
>>
>> Well, if some NetBeans community members had incorrect information and
>> you stepped in to fix that, the only thing I can say is: thank you
>> Roman!
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: Netbeans expectations (Was: Re: ASF doing too much? (Was: Re: TAC))

[Geertjan Wielenga]

>From the NetBeans side, we appreciate Roman's callibration and Jim's
transparency and Ate's diplomacy.

Onwards.

Gj


On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> (removing board@ which has nothing to do with this)
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  > wrote:
> > ...Putting aside the amount of personal time I've spent on the phone,
> > online, etc. trying to help this community calibrate their expectations
> > about transition to ASF, I must say this:..
>
> Well, if some NetBeans community members had incorrect information and
> you stepped in to fix that, the only thing I can say is: thank you
> Roman!
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma wrote:

If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK.
>

Bottom line -- we've discussed a lot already and we'll be discussing a lot
more during incubation.

The NetBeans community is large and diverse. Some might have less of an
understanding of this process and its consequences than others.

That is not a problem because any services and any assumptions that Apache
is unable to meet can be carried by one or more organizations -- after due
discussion and legal handling etc with Apache -- from which one or more
individual contributors will come into Apache NetBeans.

There is a lot at stake on both ends, I think -- i.e., at the end of this
process Apache gets the NetBeans codebase, domains, trademarks, and
everything else. On the other end, NetBeans gets the home its always
wanted. It's a completely equal match and will work out for everyone to the
benefit of all.

There are several precarious sliding pieces though the end goal will unite
everything.

Gj


On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote:

> On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it
>>> will be
>>> useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
>>> etc etc...
>>>
>>
>> Ok we can add that info in concise form once the vote thread starts.
>> Basically, only Incubator PMC members votes are binding (meaning
>> "legally valid" as far as the ASF is concerned), people shouldn't
>> hijack the VOTE thread for discussions (start new threads if needed)
>> and that's a majority vote that lasts >= 72 hours.
>>
>> Votes from other people are welcome as an indication of peoples
>> enthusiasm (or lack thereof).
>>
>> Geertjan, are you ok with starting the vote?
>>
>> I'm currently at a conference with little time, if another mentor
>> wants to start it that's fine with me. Make sure to include the text
>> of https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
>>
>
> If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK.
>
> Ate
>
>
>
>> -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: Radical proposal: no initial list of committers

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit
> them
> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.


In that regard, I'm not concerned about "the known knowns" and "the known
unknowns". Those are OK, we'll work through them. Just like you, I imagine,
I'm concerned about "the unknown unknowns":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk

On the other hand, I know we will cross those bridges when we get to them.

Gj


On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> > The NetBeans proposal (among many others in the past) has demonstrated a
> > significant "problem" with trying to establish an appropriate list of
> > initial committers. There are many people that want to be on, for various
> > reasons. Because they are committers, recent or historic. Or they want
> the
> > "prestige" to be there. Some people believe they "deserve" to be on the
> > list. etc etc
> >
> > Establishing the list is particularly difficult for large and old
> > communities.
> >
> > But. What if we just said "no such list" ?
> >
> > This will shift the initial voting of committers upon the
> Champion/Mentors
> > who will construct the entirety of the PPMC. But hey: aren't they
> supposed
> > to be involved? Aren't they supposed to demonstrate how to earn merit,
> and
> > the committership that results?
>
> This! This requires a super engaged cast of Mentors that are actually
> willing to spend significant ammount of time down in the trenches.
> Unfortunately mentor availability (for even simple things like a report
> sign-off) has been a constant (although not as urgent these days)
> issue (*)
>
> With the right group of mentors -- I'm super +1 on this!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> (*) For example, I'm really curious whether the current cast of NetBeans
> mentors are really aware of the IP review workload that is going to hit
> them
> once NetBeans tries to produce its first official Apache Release.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>