> 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 host whatever library a user uploads, regardless of the license (as long as it doesn't breach some law). LieGrue, strub > On Saturday, 24 September 2016, 14:00, Wade Chandler > <cons...@wadechandler.com> wrote: > > 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 incubator > stipulation or not. > > But, along with this discussion plus some other questions I saw, and just > to be clear if doing this sooner rather than later, there is a difference > in the sources and the binaries; I realise I may be reiterating on a prior > statement, but I think it is key. > > Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? What is the difference? The IDE > and platform have to be able to compete as a project and community. Does > Eclipse or JetBrains own all of the ones in their portals? What about > Gradle? > > 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? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't > force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has > been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a > similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its > user base and use cases. > > I agree porting plugins portal to use Maven central won't happen overnight, > and the community won't do well without the portal; it would be a huge set > back. Too, even if the artifacts are in central, the portal UI will still > be necessary as the artifact UI just doesn't support the same use cases; in > case there is any question. > > Thanks, > > Wade > > > On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < >> bdelacre...@apache.org >> > wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga >> > <geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this > stage. :-) >> > >> > Correct ;-) >> > >> > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's > infrastructure cost >> > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public > results >> > soon and can then move forward. >> > >> >> One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is >> plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem >> and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope > to figure >> it out before Oracle shuts it down". >> >> I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter >> incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where >> would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some > basic >> technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the >> related cost). >> >> As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of > idea of >> how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno >> with the costing and getting that +1 from on high. >> >> (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven >> Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout; >> plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that) >> >> Cheers, >> -g >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
