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

Hi folks, I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff notes are as follows: - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins) - 8-13 machines/VMS are required - Ballpark hardware costs

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Consider you did contribute 300 important patches to NetBeans over the years. Wouldn't it hurt your feelings that you are not enlisted on the initial committers list? But otoh the initial list of committers is not important for the ASF _if_ the PPMC makes a good job. Because if such a

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :( In the ASF it's good practice to give credits to the patch contributor in the commit, e.g. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bafa2ba5977ab88c8dfe376c9756825d948bce9afd3b69aa693ab96@%3Ccommits.openwebbeans.apache.org%3E

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling. Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for 3-4 years and then we'll have

new Infrastructure Administrator (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans ...)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Greg, > many people on this list are probably unaware that your role changed a > couple of days ago... > Oh. Heh. Fair point! Niclas is referring to this: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Greg Stein

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to be perfect. We should differentiate between a contributor and a committer. A lot more people contributed patches via bugzilla than actually committed them in the Mercurial repository themselves. The reason being it was

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

Congrats Spot team. BTW, there were 5 binding votes. Regards, Uma On 9/23/16, 3:33 PM, "Doug Cutting" wrote: >The vote passes, with 7 +1 votes (4 binding) and no -1 votes. > >+1 Jarek Jarcec Cecho (binding) >+1 Gangumalla, Uma >+1 Todd Lipcon (binding) >+1 Tom White

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Phone top posting: I agree plugins are a huge part of NetBeans success; you need them for Gradle support as an example. Sure, you can install them outside the portal, but it is a pain for most. What ever you all are able to do is greatly appreciated; whether now or soon, and whether that is an

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

> Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? Nope, don't mix up Apache Maven core with the 'Maven central' which is operated by Sonatype in conjunction with the Apache Maven PMC. It is more clear though with JFrog BinTray which is clearly owned by a company. Maven.central and Bintray both

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 24.09.2016 05:34, Wade Chandler wrote: [...] I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache or licensed the same?

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Good questions all. Emilian Bold wrote on 9/24/16 5:18 AM: > I assume there is a reason the list is called initial. It doesn't have to > be perfect. Correct. The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a key

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Michael Müller wrote: > regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers. Done! Added you in the Miscellaneous section in the proposal. What specifically are you planning to contribute? Thanks, Gj On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Michael

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

Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow! Chris On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" wrote: Hi folks, I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

> hg doesn't have the committer/author separation like GIT has, right? :( > I don't believe it does, yet. > In the ASF it's good practice to give credits to the patch contributor in > the commit, e.g. > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5bafa2ba5977ab88c8dfe376c97568 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

A NetBeans release is produced from the NetBeans Mercurial repository. All the language modules: Java, Javascript, C/C++, etc. you see there after install are Oracle / NetBeans code. The Plugins Portal has some other, 3rd party modules which don't come bundled with the official builds but users

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Daniel, this is excellent. Thank you. When we brought AOO in we offset some costs, such as bandwidth, through our arrangement with SourceForge. Can we do the same here? (I imagine this has already been discussed, I'm behind of those threads, I'm just looking for a short summary). Shane, if the

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare plattform > and no IDE. No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds. There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these are the

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > Correct. The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the > community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a > key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers. > > In my experience, it's

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Spot into the Apache Incubator

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:03 AM, Gangumalla, Uma wrote: > BTW, there were 5 binding votes. Oops. Sorry for the miscount! I mistakenly searched for "Gangumalla" rather than "umamahesh" in http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc, but I should

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:07 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: > Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > wrote: > >> Hi Wade, > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. > He then drifted away from the > project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging. Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has contributed, when

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

The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects. Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing. It

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 24/09/16 à 15:18, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit : > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > > >> Correct. The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a >> key point of self-governance is

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

Le 24/09/16 à 01:25, Roman Shaposhnik a écrit : > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> Hi Wade, >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Wade Chandler >> wrote: >>> ..I can say as a long time contributor who is not on

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

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and incubator (who cause the problem). Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved. I will work with the board to determine the best

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM: > On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between 2002-2008. >> He then drifted away from the >> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging. > > Is it possible to create a "master list'

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list. Here's what I propose: 1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I have already started doing this, grouping individual

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

Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very different under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted

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

Hi, > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example. A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that. Thanks, Justin 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html -