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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 10:08 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > The LICENSE file has a table that maps a file to its license "key" and
> the
> > license is then stored in the (top-level) "licenses" directory (in the
> > header of the table, there is a note about that: "text is in file in
> > licenses directory"). We used to put all the licenses into the LICENSE
> > file, but we were told that is confusing (as the LICENSE file gets fairly
> > huge, esp. for the convenience binary), so the licenses were put into a
> > separate directory.
>
> Yep that the recommended way i.e. add a pointer to where the license is
> located rather than the full license text when there are many licenses. I
> think you are missing a couple, give me a couple of days and I’ll come up
> with a list for you.
>

Thanks!


> > Or we can change the reference in the table in the LICENSE file to
> > read like "licenses/CDDL-1.0" instead of "CDDL-1.0”.
>
> That I think would make it clearer.
>

Ok, I think that will be easy to do.

>
> > Do you mean licenses under nbbuild/licenses and under the modules, like:
> > java/maven.embedder/external? The LICENSE file should not refer to them
> > (that only ever refers to the top-level licenses directory), so these
> > should be OK?
>
> It OK it just makes it very hard to check the release for what is bundled
> and not and what needs to go in LICENSE.
>
> >> 1.
> >>
> ./ide/css.editor/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/editor/module/main/properties/PropertiesATest.java
> >>
> >
> > What is the problem with this file? Looking at the file, I am not sure
> > what's the problem.
>
> May of been a false positive as it contains the text:
> "/*!* Many thanks to Sorin Stefan and Nicole Sullivan!*(Refers to section
> A. Libraries) * Copyright(c) 2007,Yahoo!Inc. All rights reserved. * Code
> licensed under the BSD License:*
> http://developer.yahoo.net/yui/license.txt * version:2.2.1 */“
>

Hmm, true. Looking at the history, it does not reveal much. We might want
to simply include the license to be on the safe side (assuming we can find
it the proper version.)

Thanks,
Jan


> But it seems odd to have that in there.
>
> 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]

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Justin,

Some more questions on the LICENSE(/NOTICE).

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:43 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> I think there some more work to do on licensing here, and these will be
> needed to be fixed in a later release:
> - You are not compiling with the terms of the licenses of the 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.
>

The LICENSE file has a table that maps a file to its license "key" and the
license is then stored in the (top-level) "licenses" directory (in the
header of the table, there is a note about that: "text is in file in
licenses directory"). We used to put all the licenses into the LICENSE
file, but we were told that is confusing (as the LICENSE file gets fairly
huge, esp. for the convenience binary), so the licenses were put into a
separate directory. We could easily place everything to the LICENSE file
again. Or we can change the reference in the table in the LICENSE file to
read like "licenses/CDDL-1.0" instead of "CDDL-1.0". Either of these should
be a fairly easy thing.


> - 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 but are
> dependancies, so I’m been unable to check if LICENSE and NOTICE are correct.
>

Do you mean licenses under nbbuild/licenses and under the modules, like:
java/maven.embedder/external? The LICENSE file should not refer to them
(that only ever refers to the top-level licenses directory), so these
should be OK? (We need them so that we can construct the correct LICENSE
file for the convenience binaries.)


> - A spot check show that things are bundled but not mentioned in LICENSE
> as they need to be, for example [1][2]. I would expect there to be others.
> - It also look like you are including image file that you do not have
> permission to distribute
>
> Give all of the above this release is almost impossible to check if it in
> compliance with ASF release, distribution or legal policies and some
> improvement need to be made so that it can be.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.
> ./ide/css.editor/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/editor/module/main/properties/PropertiesATest.java
>

What is the problem with this file? Looking at the file, I am not sure
what's the problem.


> 2.
> ./php/php.editor/test/unit/data/testfiles/actions/testImportData/libs/nette.min.php
>

Yes, this definitely should be included in LICENSE.

Thanks,
Jan



> 3.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2b6ad0d98a9342595da27902f25e7c43c4291738154eedc8b33afb5e@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> -
> 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]

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Justin,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:58 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > I assume we are taking about files like:
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java
>
> Those are some of the files yes but 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,


Yes, we use rat. We have exclusions here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/rat-exclusions.txt

Annotated with a reason why the given exclusion (or a set of exclustions)
is there.

(13,000+ if you include the .pass files), but only two dozen files of those
> source file are out side of test directories.
>

Would you please have a list? I tried this:
java -jar ~/Downloads/apache-rat-0.12.jar . >rat
cat rat | grep '== File:' | grep -e '\.java$' -e '\.jsp$' -e '\.php$' -e
'\.js$' | grep -v 'test/unit/data' | grep -v 'test/qa-functional/data'

And it yields the following list for me:
== File:
./enterprise/web.jsf/src/org/netbeans/modules/web/jsf/facelets/resources/templates/forward.jsp
== File:
./enterprise/web.jsf/src/org/netbeans/modules/web/jsf/resources/jsfcrud.js
== File:
./enterprise/web.primefaces/src/org/netbeans/modules/web/primefaces/templates/jsfcrud.js
== File:
./php/php.atoum/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/atoum/ui/resources/AtoumTest.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/BlankLines.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/Braces.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/Spaces.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/TabsIndents.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/Uses.php
== File:
./php/php.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/php/editor/indent/ui/Wrapping.php

With some work, these should be handlable.

Thanks,
Jan


>
> 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
>
>

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

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the comments. One particular question/comment at this time:

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 2:43 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> - There are a number (100’s) of source files that do not have ASF headers,
> Please run rat and please add headers to .java, .jsp and .php files that
> are missing the ASF headers.
>

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

As this is an IDE, many features manipulate source code. And tests for the
features that manipulate have source code as an input. And input files for
these tests so resemble source code. There is this policy:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

Which says:
---
Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the tests
to fail.
---

If I add the license header to the file above, there is a test somewhere
that will start to fail, so it seems this fits this exception. Or if it
does not, why not?

Frankly, if we were talking about a "handful" of tests, I wouldn't worry
about doing changes. But, a) we are probably talking about tens of
thousands of tests; b) I am really worried about tests that will not fail
after the header is added, but will not longer test the erroneous condition
they should be testing (i.e. "silent failure"), as only manual inspection
can detect these; c) I am worried that if the ASF header will ever change,
we will face test breakages again (for tens of thousands of tests).

Of course there are tricks that are being played for new tests to avoid
this, but here we are in some cases talking about tests that are more than
a decade old. (There are even tricks that could be played for existing test
(data files), but none of them really nice, and all of them having their
own issues.)

Thanks,
 Jan

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:20 AM, 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.
>

I think one could argue it is a compressed file[1], one just needs a
special tool to get the uncompressed version (as one needs to get data out
of the .zip or .tar.gz file):
$ unzip incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip
mercurial/test/qa-functional/data/JavaApp_repo.zip
Archive:  incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip
  inflating: mercurial/test/qa-functional/data/JavaApp_repo.zip

$ cd mercurial/test/qa-functional/data/

$ unzip JavaApp_repo.zip
Archive:  JavaApp_repo.zip
   creating: .hg/
   creating: .hg/store/
   creating: .hg/store/data/
 extracting: .hg/store/data/build.xml.i
  inflating: .hg/store/data/manifest.mf.i
   creating: .hg/store/data/nbproject/
 extracting: .hg/store/data/nbproject/build-impl.xml.i
  inflating: .hg/store/data/nbproject/genfiles.properties.i
 extracting: .hg/store/data/nbproject/project.properties.i
  inflating: .hg/store/data/nbproject/project.xml.i
   creating: .hg/store/data/src/
   creating: .hg/store/data/src/javaapp/
  inflating: .hg/store/data/src/javaapp/_main.java.i
  inflating: .hg/store/00manifest.i
  inflating: .hg/store/00changelog.i
  inflating: .hg/store/undo
 extracting: .hg/requires
  inflating: .hg/00changelog.i
  inflating: .hg/dirstate
  inflating: .hg/undo.dirstate
 extracting: .hgignore

$ hg log
changeset:   0:8df7d6dbbdba
tag: tip
user:Padraig OBriain 
date:Tue Jul 17 14:13:47 2007 +0100
summary: Initial commit

$ hg cat -r 0 src/javaapp/Main.java
/*
 * Main.java
 *
 * Created on Jul 17, 2007, 2:13:19 PM
 *
 * To change this template, choose Tools | Templates
 * and open the template in the editor.
 */

package javaapp;

/**
 *
 * @author padraigo
 */
public class Main {

/**
 * @param args the command line arguments
 */
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO code application logic here
}

}

(here I'd argue this file has no degree of creativity: this is simply the
new file template at that time with file name, date and author filled
automatically by the IDE.)

[1] or, more in generally multiple compressed files, as this can hold
multiple revisions of the file, although there is only one revision in this
repo.

Jan


> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Justin,

I wonder where exactly (most) of these files come from. I just did:
$ wget
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1-rc1/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip
[this is the URL from the first e-mail in this thread]
$ sha1sum
incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip

a1a265455c8246f849b14982fa3c36b351b21876
incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip
[I note this is the same SHA1 sum that was mentioned in the first e-mail in
this thread]

$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
dummy-signed-twice.jar | wc -l
0
$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
dummy-signed.jar | wc -l
0


So it seems [1] and [2] are not in the source zip. These have been removed
from the repository by:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/commit/4abdad79e682d4d93ebc92ff986e82bf0c0d44a1

$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
JavaApp_repo.zip | wc
-l

1


So yes, [3] is in the source zip. I went through the file content and I
don't see a compile code in there - could you please be more specific what
nested file there is a compiled code? And, ideally, what is the very exact
definition of "compiled code"?

$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep TestJDK.class
| wc
-l

0

So it seems [4] is not in the source zip. This has been removed from the
repository by:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/commit/4abdad79e682d4d93ebc92ff986e82bf0c0d44a1

$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
test91098.class | wc -l
0
$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
left-square.class | wc -l
0
$ unzip -t incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-source.zip | grep
SwitchData.class | wc -l
0

So it seems [5][6][7] are not in the source zip. These have been removed
from the repository by:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/commit/41cb237b46176b30de4d0c40f1c0be3e411fc9dc

Thanks,
Jan

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry but it -1 binding from me as the source release contains compiled
> code. It’s not an open source release if it contains jars that contain
> compiled code e.g. [1][2] And before you ask there is no exception for test
> resources. If you need compiled code make it compile as part of the build
> process. Even worse the release also looks to contain compiled code here
> [3] and there are also several class files  included[4][5][6][7][8]. There
> are several other files and archives that look like compiled code. I have
> to ask how did the vote get past the PPMC and it’s mentors with these
> issues? And what can be done so this doesn't happen again? Please check
> that your rat exclusions have not been set to too wide and rat shovel pick
> up these issues.
>
> 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.  ./mercurial/test/qa-functional/data/JavaApp_repo.zip
> 4. ./nbi/engine/src/org/netbeans/installer/utils/applications/
> TestJDK.class
> 5. ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/test91098.class
> 6. ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/left-square.class
> 7. ./classfile/test/unit/src/regression/datafiles/SwitchData.class
> -
> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

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 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 RC1 (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-rc1-rc1

 The specific artifact to be voted on:

 https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/in
 cubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-rc1-rc1/incubating-
 netbeans-java-9.0-rc1-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/master/README.md

 SHA1: a1a265455c8246f849b14982fa3c36b351b21876

 KEYS file:

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

 Apache NetBeans Git Repo tag: 9.0-rc1-rc1:

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Quote from Apache Legal FAQ:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
> >
> > "[...] For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK, however
> > including GPL'ed source code is not.[...]"
> >
> > Apache Netbeans uses external tools when building and at least GPLv2-
> > CP
> > code is used. The license is referred to by the
> > /external/-license.txt file. That file holds
> > additional meta data for the dependency.
>
> Why include the license of something that is not bundled in the release?
>

Regarding nbbuild/licenses/GPL-2-CP and its copies in a handful of
*/external/*-license.txt files (which are AFAIK used only for
compile-time/optional dependencies), it seems to me that marking those with
licenses helps with proper handling of licenses. I.e., we could leave the
dependencies without specifying a license, but:
-what if someone is interested to know what is the license of the
compile-time dependency? Do they need to investigate on their own?
-what we would write these compile-time dependencies to the DEPENDENCIES
file? Or should we eliminate the "Compile time dependencies" from the file
altogether?

So, overall, it seems to me it is a better service for the users of the
release to have the license included, than to hide it?

(Please note that this license is, AFAIK, not included or referred to from
the LICENSE file for neither the release nor the convenience binaries.)

Jan


> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:
[snip]

> Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?
>
> They may well do but TLP don’t always get things 100% right (the lucerne
> NOTICE file for instance) so IMO we should try and work what is the right
> hing to do here.
>

I've filled:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-361

Thanks,
Jan

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
> > these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
> > the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
> > NetBeans build system produces.
>
> It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed
> knowledge things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are
> licensed. The review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount
> time if all of the jar contained their license (and notice) files.
>

Thanks. I'll look at how to include that. I assume the usual conditions
apply, i.e. that the license and notice in each jar should only refer to
what's in the jar, right? (As a consequence the content might differ among
modules in general.)

>
> > ./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
> >> - CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE
> >>
> >
> > Hm, this should be under Apache 2.0 - this is built from
> "o.openidex.util"
> > from the source bundle. Is there something we need to fix so it does not
> > appear to be under CDDL?
>
> Well the jar doesn’t contain any license but a google search of the jar
> name indicated it was CDDL I could be wrong.
>

I suspect that this will be true for almost all NetBeans jars. As NetBeans
was under CDDL-GPL-2-CP.


>
> > Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?
>
> They may well do but TLP don’t always get things 100% right (the lucerne
> NOTICE file for instance) so IMO we should try and work what is the right
> hing to do here.
>
> >> - are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?
> >
> > I don't know, it has been released this way.
>
> If that the case "Copyright 2017 NetBeans” is probably not correct it
> should be copyright ASF right? Or are the jars not generated from source in
> the Apache Netbeans project?
>
> > Ah, I guess the naming may be confusing here - I believe these are
> standard
> > NetBeans artifacts, for certain core stuff NetBeans is using
> "org.openide"
> > package (and module name). Built from openide.compat and openide.dialogs
> in
> > the source bundle, respectively. Is there something we can do to reduce
> > confusion?
>
> Change the package name perhaps? Not that it needs to be done right away
> and they may be good reasons for not changing it if other projects rely on
> it.
>

Everything under org.openide is an API, so I don't think changing that name
is an option, sorry.

Jan


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation
>
>
> -
> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

Thanks a lot for a thorough review! Will take some time to go through that
and fix, but a few questions:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of
> missed something. A number of issues here are due to upstream projects
> putting too much in NOTICE or not including a NOTICE file in the jar :-(
> But it also looked like you missing a couple of things from LICENSE as well
> and have a few thing listed under the wrong license. I think you may need
> someone to go though that list and double check.
>
> Netbeans jars are missing LICENSE and NOTICE file in META_INF. Note that
> this may vary on a jar by jar basis.
>

I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
NetBeans build system produces.

[snip]

./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
> - CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE
>

Hm, this should be under Apache 2.0 - this is built from "o.openidex.util"
from the source bundle. Is there something we need to fix so it does not
appear to be under CDDL?

[snip]


> platform/modules/ext/org.eclipse.osgi_3.9.1.v20140110-1610.jar
> - I’m not sure if the OSGi license is compatible with the Apache one. It’s
> not listed in Category A/B/X you may need to ask on legal discuss. It may
> be under EPL but not 100% sure.
>

Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?

[snip]


> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot-fx.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot-script.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-geo.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-sound.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html.jar
> - have NOTICE files that would effect the NOTICE file
> - a couple have DISCLAIMER is that’s right?
>

It is part of the NetBeans incubator project, so I believe it is right.


> - are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?
>

I don't know, it has been released this way.

 [snip]


> ./platform/modules/org-openide-compat.jar
> ./platform/modules/org-openide-dialogs.jar
> (and a few others similarly named)
> - are missing from LICENSE
>

Ah, I guess the naming may be confusing here - I believe these are standard
NetBeans artifacts, for certain core stuff NetBeans is using "org.openide"
package (and module name). Built from openide.compat and openide.dialogs in
the source bundle, respectively. Is there something we can do to reduce
confusion?

Thanks,
Jan


>
> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
> > far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
> > (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is
> mostly
> > based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle, like Ant
> or
> > Lucene.)
>
> Only stuff that is actually bundled needs to be mentioned not what you use
> or depend on. I’ve not checked but do you bundle ant or just use it?
>

We bundle ant (under netbeans/extide/ant in the binary distro).

>
> I can take a look and come back with some recommendation if you want.
>

I think that would be most useful, thanks!

Jan


>
> Thanks,
> Justin

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, 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."  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
>

I agree this is bad. (I think it was not found by the re-licensing tools
because the header is broken.)

document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
> header.  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.
>

Not sure why is that.

There appear to be 2 (3) files with this header, used by a single testcase,
I am pretty sure we can solve that.


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

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. If there's no other problem with test data,
we can trivially fix this one, and there won't be any problem.

Should there be any other problem with the test data, please let us know.

Thanks for finding the SPL problem,
Jan


>
>
> >
> > > - 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 

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
wrote:

>
>
> Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb 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.
>>
>
> sorry for jumping in here, I only know half what those files are about, so
> I might be wrong. It seemed to me those are java files, that are test
> files. If you make an IDE for a language, you will want tests, that
> basically consist of code and are test data. And since they are test data,
> they have been excluded. Since they are also code, this produces an edge
> case conflict.
>
> Now in Groovy we have also test data as code, but our tests have the test
> data either embedded and sue them directly from in-memory or will write
> them to disk or even produce them. Those tests then of course have the
> right header and do not need to be excluded. Is that no way forward for
> NetBeans?
>

We have such tests as well, of course. But some tests use test data that is
in separate files in the repository, and it would seem to me to be a wasted
effort to convert thousands of existing tests to a different approach
without a good technical reason.

Jan


>
> bye Jochen
>
>
> -
> 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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament 
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:
>

My personal opinion (which may be minor) is that there's no specific reason
to rush this release. To me, the main point of this release was to
determine if everything is OK, and if not, what exactly is not. So that
when the actual (non-beta) release comes up, we minimize surprises.


> - Remove the binary zip files from the source release
>

I don't think there are doubts about that.


> - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
>

One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
(Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is mostly
based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle, like Ant or
Lucene.)


> - 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.


> - 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.
> > >
> > > 

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

[Jan Lahoda]

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

[Jan Lahoda]

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

[Jan Lahoda]

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justing,
>
> It’s Justin actually.
>

Opops, sorry.


>
> > 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.
>

Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
removed), to avoid further confusion?

Thanks,
Jan


>
> > 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

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

[Jan Lahoda]

Hi Justing,

Thanks for the comments. I guess it will take some time for us to fully go
through the list and resolve it. I have a few comments/questions inline if
I may.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It -1 (binding) as there may be GPL inclusions in the release and Category
> B software in a source release, the source release LICENSE is missing
> several things, and the binary LICENSE and NOTICE contains too much and the
> source release contains compiled  source, may also be some images that you
> don’t have permission to use or distribute. Some of these may turn out to
> be minor issues but they need to be clarified.
>
> Please ask your mentors to help on fixing up the LICENSE and/or read this
> [1]. Some time ago I also made this which may help. [2][3] I suggest you
> also run rat on the release to find some of these issues I found.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE has a number of issues (see below)
> - NOTICE is OK
> - There’s a number of file that are missing ASF headers, including 700 odd
> java files, and a large number  number of xml, dtd, wdsl, xsd and files
> containing code ending with .pass.
>

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


> - unexpected binary files in the source release [26][27][28][29] (these
> contain compiled code)
>
> Several (not dual license) GPL license files exist in the source release.
> Does this software include GPL or depend on any GPL licensed software? For
> instance [4][19]
>

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.


>
> There a large number of icons in the release do know the ip provenance of
> them and how they are licensed?
>
> There also seems to be a number of stock photos [30][31][32] in the
> release. How are they licensed? Do you have permission to use or distribute
> them?
>
> LICENSE is missing licenses for:
> - CDDL licensed this [5] and about 100 others inside SFS-Editors-Folder.zip
> - These CDDL/GPL licensed files [7][8][10] and a number of files like this
> one is [9]
> - this patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL header [6]
>
- these EPL licensed files [11][12][13][14][15][16]
> - these files under the sun public license [17][18]
> - this MIT licensed file [20] (which also includes MIT licensed
> normalize.css)
> - this patch seems to be removing a MIT license header [21]
>

As I read the patch, it is removing whole files including their headers.
But maybe I missed some occurrence?


> - this IOS file [22] (and about a dozen other files)
> - how is this file licensed? [23]
> - this WC3 license file [24] and a dozen others
>
> However CDDL, EPL and the sun public license are in Category B [25] and
> not allowed is source form in a release.
>
> I glanced at the binary LICENSE and NOTICE of the binary and I think
> there's too much information in there.
> - There is no need to repeat the Apache license text several times
> - Only 3rd party software that is bundled in the source release needs to
> be mention in LICENSE and NOTICE.  Is everything mentioned really bundled?
>

(I assume this is about LICENSE and NOTICE for the convenience binaries.)
Both these files are automatically generated for the given build. I
double-checked the files referred to in LICENSE, and they seem to exist in
the binary, so as far as I can tell, we really bundle this stuff.


> - NOTICE seems to contain too much information
>

I believe this is based on the NOTICE files of the included dependencies.
Is there something specific we should remove?

Thanks,
Jan


> - For long licenses it best to use a pointer the the full text of the
> license rather than include the full text
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> 2. https://vimeo.com/171210141
> 3. https://github.com/justinmclean/ApacheWombat
> 4. nbbuild/licenses/LGPL-2.1
> 5. test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/editor/settings/
> storage/compatibility/p1/SFS-Editors-Folder.zip/Editors/
> AnnotationTypes/Breakpoint.xml
> 6. css.lib/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/lib/antlrv4.patch
> 7. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/orm_1_0.xsd
> 8. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/persistence_1_0.xsd
> 9. refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Jan Lahoda]

Hello,

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> git clone of the Linus' repo takes 3 minutes.
>
> The hg clone of netbeans took 5 HOURS!
>
> Also checking out all the files or swapping branches in the git repo takes
> about 45 seconds in GIT, but much longer in hg.
>
> The repo size is 3.6GB. But it contains many binaries which we could
> probably strip off.
> I really don't like to have a Hibernate jar file in an official ASF repo ;)
>

To my knowledge, NetBeans build is normally downloading external
(production) binaries from a binary repository:
http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/

Which binaries should be downloaded is currently specified using
binaries-list, like:
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/6627a4fc3e3f/o.apache.tools.ant.module/external/binaries-list

But, before, these were specified using a different format:
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/a280d4534580/hibernatelib/external/hibernate-3.2.5-lib.zip
http://hg.netbeans.org/main-silver/file/0f086eac0b5b/o.apache.tools.ant.module/external/ant-libs-1.7.0.zip

This is still a textual format and is not the actual binary - that was
downloaded automatically on demand. (I believe this approach was found to
be not reliable enough and was replaced with binaries-list, which AFAIK
works well.) So not all historical ".zip" or ".jar" files in the repository
are binaries.

That said, it is entirely possible there are some doubtful binaries in the
repository, and there are (binary) icons, launchers, test data, etc.

I would, however, be surprised if removing those would make the repository
half the current size or less.

Jan


> Still figuring where to upload the git repo to :(
>
>
> LieGrue,
>
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, 20 September 2016, 11:52, cowwoc 
> wrote:
> > > Mark Struberg-2 wrote
> >>  Linux never was on hg, so the comparison doesn't fit.
> >>
> >>  To be more clear: I'm not concerned that GIT cannot handle the NetBeans
> >>  repo size.
> >
> > I actually concerned by this. A client I work for has a large Git repo. I
> > doubt its size is anywhere close to the Linux repo, but its performance
> is
> > abysmal. Navigating the git log or invoking "git checkout" takes
> > minutes. It
> > is almost completely unusable.
> >
> > I'm sure you've read this by now, but HG seems a better fit for these
> > larger
> > projects:
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1unehr/
> scaling_mercurial_at_facebook/
> >
> > All this to say: I would tread carefully. Out of curiosity, is there a
> > reason that Apache projects can't use Mercurial?
> >
> > Gili
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/
> DISCUSS-Apache-NetBeans-Incubator-Proposal-tp51171p51346.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
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>