[DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

h (Codename One)
 * Zoran Sevarac (University of Belgrade)
 * Henry Arousell (Björn Lundén Information AB)
 * Thomas Boqvist (Björn Lundén Information AB)
 * Jaroslav Tulach (Oracle)
 * Don Kretsch (Oracle)
 * Vladimir Voskresensky (Oracle)
 * Dmitry Zharkov (Oracle)
 * Liang Chen (Oracle)
 * Geertjan Wielenga (Oracle)
 * Tomas Zezula (Oracle)
 * Dusan Balek (Oracle)
 * Svatopluk Dedic (Oracle)
 * Tomas Hurka (Oracle)
 * Milutin Kristofic (Oracle)
 * Jiri Sedlacek (Oracle)
 * Miloslav Metelka (Oracle)
 * Petr Hejl (Oracle)
 * Tomas Stupka (Oracle)
 * Petr Pisl (Oracle)
 * Martin Entlicher (Oracle)
 * Tomas Mysik (Oracle)
 * Martin Balin (Oracle)
 * Libor Fischmeister (Oracle)
 * Petr Gebauer (Oracle)
 * Ondrej Vrabec (Oracle)
 * Jaroslav Havlin (Oracle)
 * Jiri Skrivanek (Oracle)
 * Jiri Prox (Oracle)
 * Jiri Kovalsky (Oracle)

== Sponsors ==

Champion:
 * Bertrand Delacratez

Mentors:
 * Bertrand Delacratez
 * Emmanuel Lécharny
 * Ate Douma

Sponsoring Entity
 * The Apache Incubator

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Many thanks everyone for the enthusiasm and also for the new mentors --
indeed, an infrastructure-focused mentor or two will be really relevant. We
have of course had several discussions and mail exchanges with our mentors
before publishing the proposal.

The bottom line is, we want to fit into the Apache way as much as possible.
Some binaries may need to be hosted elsewhere, if we cannot get a legal
exception. Some parts of the infrastructure may also need to be hosted
elsewhere. We have a lot of faith in Apache's approach to things which is
why we're taking this direction to Apache.

We'll need to provide very precise details of everything we have in terms
of infrastructure and licensing. We're looking forward to a range of
enhancements that you're not even aware of since you don't know our current
infrastructure. :-) For example, right now we have one build engineer who
knows everything about our release infrastructure (i.e., about
Jenkins/Hudson jobs, about doing releases, about publishing releases, about
uploading the bits and making them generally available). Within Apache,
we're looking forward to that whole process being transparent and having
that knowledge available to more than one person. Even on this basis alone,
Apache is going to be great for NetBeans.

Re the NetBeans forums, yes, we've had these for a few years. We didn't
always have them. If within Apache there's no such thing as forums and no
project within Apache has a problem with that, then I wonder whether we
from the NetBeans ecosystem should have a problem with that.

We're really looking forward to being part of an open infrastructure and
ecosystem and I'm sure there'll be hurdles, though I'm also sure we'll be
able to cross them together for the greater benefit of everyone.

Geertjan



On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny  >
> > wrote:
> > > Jim, I would be pleased to pass you the batton. You most certainly will
> > be
> > > a better mentor than I could be
> >
> > With all due respect to both of you guys that's hard to estimate upfront
> > ;-)
> >
> > Unless one of you envisions constraints like lack of time that would
> > prevent you from participating adequately, I suggest that you both
> > stay on board as mentors, you can always resign from mentorship at any
> > time if we find that we have too many mentors during incubation.
> >
>
> When I was asked to became a mentor, I accepted. That was an obvious
> decision. Now, I really do think that having too many mentors is not
> necessarily a good idea. I rather prefer having someone like Jim with a
> very deep knowledge on how The ASF work, especially for such a project,
> with potentially "political" interactions, and more important, a lot of PR
> to deal with. NetBeans is not one of the project we see often at Incubator,
> I do think it deserves hot guns.
>
> Better have a hard core set of mentors from the beginning than having a
> bunch of people that will quit during incubation, IMHO.
>
> Btw, I really do think that adding someone from Infra is mandatory, due to
> the high requirement on Infra this project will have.
>
> My 2 cts ;-)
> --
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Indeed, there is no code on plugins.netbeans.org at all. No one can donate
any code from anywhere on plugins.netbeans.org to anyone else. It simply
contains binaries, i.e., NBM files, which are ZIP archives containing a JAR
together with some metadata needed for installing it. Quite a few of them
are not current anymore. If we were to ask the plugin authors to relicense
their NBM files to Apache, could those binaries be hosted somewhere by
Apache? A central location with subfolders for NetBeans versions containing
the NBM files is all that's needed. That needs to be accessible via HTTP,
which is the protocol for loading the NBM files into the Plugin Manager in
NetBeans IDE. From there, the user of NetBeans IDE can choose whether to
install them or not. I hope this clarifies SIR03.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Wade Chandler 
wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2016, at 04:02, Bertrand Delacretaz 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
>  ...SIR03 Migration of plugin publication system, plugins.netbeans.org,
> to Apache infrastructure
> >>
> >> This looks to be an interesting. Are the plugins gated by license? Any
> >> vetting going on? Is there a history of DMCA requests being served by
> >> things uploaded to plugins.nb.o? How much bandwidth does this site
> >> consume? Are their folks who can maintain this site from bare metal up
> >> in the project?...
> >
> > The plugins.netbeans.org site says "plugins provided by community
> > members and third-party companies" so I doubt Oracle has the rights to
> > donate all that code to us. Sorry that we missed that during the
> > proposal preparation phase.
> >
>
> This is like uploading to Maven central or r.m.a.o and distributing
> binaries which are uploaded from community members, such as myself. How
> does repo.maven.apache.org  work? All I
> really know it is hosted by way of a fastly.net 
> account, but I don’t know if that is infra ASF provides or a 3rd party
> thing. That is perhaps a rough equivalent depending on the way binaries get
> there though. For example, these are not donated to Apache:
> http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/com/oracle/ojdbc14/10.2.0.2.0/ <
> http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/com/oracle/ojdbc14/10.2.0.2.0/>
> http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/com/microsoft/azure/ <
> http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/com/microsoft/azure/>
>
> But, the main point is these are binaries which someone/system most likely
> uploaded through an automated way or browser or something else manually,
> and are distributed to Maven builds which request them. The sources and
> javadocs JAR files may end up there too in various forms of licenses.
>
> > If that's correct I would suggest keeping the plugins.netbeans.org
> > migration out of the incubation proposal, and letting Apache NetBeans
> > handle that later. That might just be suggesting to move that code to
> > GitHub and creating an alternate plugin installation mechanism that
> > grabs whatever it needs there.
> >
> > It looks like those plugins are clearly "code associated with an
> > Apache project" once NetBeans migrates to the ASF, but code that
> > probably shouldn't belong to the ASF.
> >
> > Owners of specific plugins will still be able to donate them as well,
> > separately, once Apache NetBeans is established, via our IP clearance
> > mechanism, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >
>
> Just to clarify, these are dynamic extensions created for the IDE. This is
> the same as plugins for Maven. netbeans.org 
> doesn’t host our code, but only our binaries in “plugin” form, and then
> links to our projects.
>
> I am but a community member, so what ever is decided works obviously, but
> I wanted to clarify and point to similarities.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wade

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

NetBeans.org has forums that mirror the mailing lists (well, not always,
sometimes we've had syncing problems). My feeling is that since Apache
doesn't support forums, we could simply drop them. No need to convert the
forums to mailing lists, instead our mailing lists will need to be moved if
possible to Apache's mailing lists, while the forums can simply be dropped.
That would be my proposal for this, though some NetBeans community members
may differ and indeed it will be good to explicitly list this so that we
can track it when moving forward into incubation.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Raphael Bircher 
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> They have also a fairly big forum at http://forums.netbeans.org/ wich
> is not listed on the proposal
>
> Regards Raphael
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> >> ...Might I suggest, that if the project has a wider-than-normal
> >> infrastructure requirement, that it accepts a member of the infra PMC as
> >> a mentor or PPMC member (whatever fits best) so as to have a liaison
> >> that knows what is possible to provide and what routes to take?...
> >
> > That's a good idea, we are open to your suggestions, I think an infra
> > mentor makes absolute sense here.
> >
> > Mark Struberg is a mentor already, AFAIK he is involved infra but if
> > you want someone else that's possible of course.
> >
> > -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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I can't wait for that to happen! In the meantime, can we call NetBeans by
its real name: NetBeans, with an uppercase N and an uppercase B? Shall we
all start maintaining that, i.e., using the correct name, which is NetBeans
or, better yet, Apache NetBeans?

Yes, Oracle is handing over everything in terms of trademarks to Apache,
let's put aside that discussion since it's true, if you can point in the
proposal where this is not clear or can be clearer, tell me and we will
change/add/whatever. FYI -- no one creating independent products based on
Apache NetBeans cares what its name is.

Only two things are in discussion right now: (1) licensing [which has been
discussed quite a bit with Apache folks like Bertrand and Ate prior to the
proposal being published and we are comfortable we'll be able to solve
everything] and (2) infrastructure migration [which has been outlined
already, though we are working on a lot more details at the moment so that
everything will be crystal clear].

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Wade Chandler
>  wrote:
> > Do you mean from the stand point of it being a Java based application,
> or that some how
> > NetBeans and the Java TCK are related? I don’t think either is an impact
> on NetBeans IMHO;
> > not any more than it is for the Eclipse IDE or IntelliJ. Do you mean
> because it is being contributed
> > by Oracle perhaps? If so, does the donor have as much impact on
> contributions as that once
> > adopted by Apache? I may be misunderstanding what you are asking. I am
> not an employee
> > of Oracle; just an NB contributor.
>
> I think the question is more along the lines of what else would be
> required to produce a "canonical"
> release of Apache Netbeans. If everything that is required is being
> donated -- I think we're good.
> IOW, the project must be self-contained and not depend on anything
> still left behind the firewall
> to do on-going development and most important releases. E.g. if I send
> you a patch -- you can't
> reject it on the grounds that some test behind Oracle's frewall I've
> never seen failed. Stuff like
> that.
>
> On a related note, I haven't seen it explicitly  mentioned in the
> proposal, but I hope you guys do
> realize that once this project is accepted the Netbeans brand belongs
> to Apache. IOW, if Oracle
> or anybody else ever want to have an independent product based on
> Apache Netbeans they will
> have to call it something else.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Brilliant!

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-14 21:49, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>> I can't wait for that to happen! In the meantime, can we call NetBeans by
>> its real name: NetBeans, with an uppercase N and an uppercase B? Shall we
>> all start maintaining that, i.e., using the correct name, which is
>> NetBeans
>> or, better yet, Apache NetBeans?
>>
>
> Sorry, guilty as charged. And as a proposed mentor: double penalty :-)
> I'll try to do better in the future!
>
>
>> Yes, Oracle is handing over everything in terms of trademarks to Apache,
>> let's put aside that discussion since it's true, if you can point in the
>> proposal where this is not clear or can be clearer, tell me and we will
>> change/add/whatever. FYI -- no one creating independent products based on
>> Apache NetBeans cares what its name is.
>>
>> Only two things are in discussion right now: (1) licensing [which has been
>> discussed quite a bit with Apache folks like Bertrand and Ate prior to the
>> proposal being published and we are comfortable we'll be able to solve
>> everything] and (2) infrastructure migration [which has been outlined
>> already, though we are working on a lot more details at the moment so that
>> everything will be crystal clear].
>>
>
> Cool!
>
> I think the proposal looks great and so far I see no issues to be
> considered
> blocking for entering the Incubator.
>
> Regards, Ate
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Geertjan
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Roman Shaposhnik 
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Wade Chandler
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do you mean from the stand point of it being a Java based application,
>>>>
>>> or that some how
>>>
>>>> NetBeans and the Java TCK are related? I don’t think either is an impact
>>>>
>>> on NetBeans IMHO;
>>>
>>>> not any more than it is for the Eclipse IDE or IntelliJ. Do you mean
>>>>
>>> because it is being contributed
>>>
>>>> by Oracle perhaps? If so, does the donor have as much impact on
>>>>
>>> contributions as that once
>>>
>>>> adopted by Apache? I may be misunderstanding what you are asking. I am
>>>>
>>> not an employee
>>>
>>>> of Oracle; just an NB contributor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the question is more along the lines of what else would be
>>> required to produce a "canonical"
>>> release of Apache Netbeans. If everything that is required is being
>>> donated -- I think we're good.
>>> IOW, the project must be self-contained and not depend on anything
>>> still left behind the firewall
>>> to do on-going development and most important releases. E.g. if I send
>>> you a patch -- you can't
>>> reject it on the grounds that some test behind Oracle's frewall I've
>>> never seen failed. Stuff like
>>> that.
>>>
>>> On a related note, I haven't seen it explicitly  mentioned in the
>>> proposal, but I hope you guys do
>>> realize that once this project is accepted the Netbeans brand belongs
>>> to Apache. IOW, if Oracle
>>> or anybody else ever want to have an independent product based on
>>> Apache Netbeans they will
>>> have to call it something else.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>> -
>>> 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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

It really does sound like these licensing and distribution concerns can be
solved in one way or another. Also, from the NetBeans side, we're going to
do everything we can to fit into the most optimal Apache approach to
structuring our infrastructure under Apache. We want to end up in a
situation where we open everything up to transparency and clarity and
strong governance. It is something we have wanted for many years and it is
now all coming together. With the fantastic supporting messages received,
among others, from James Gosling and Simon Phipps, and a lot of enthusiasm
from the community, we're looking forward to having our proposal voted into
incubation.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Wade Chandler 
> wrote:
> > NetBeans has installers, and those installers inevitably bake in some
> things. ATM they provide both Tomcat and
> > Glassfish. I assume that could be changed to TomEE or what ever, but
> would like to know what limits to bundling
> > of various binaries there are during build time to build artifacts...
>
> I'm not an expert in distributing binaries from Apache projects, as
> I've not been involved in a lot of such cases - maybe someone with
> more experience can help as well.
>
> The most important thing is that Apache releases source code only, not
> binaries. The rather strict conditions of
> http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html apply to the source code that we
> release.
>
> Projects are welcome to also distribute "convenience binaries" which
> have softer requirements as they are not officially endorsed by the
> foundation (or something like that, dunno the exact wording).
>
> One project that I think has done a good job in distributing such
> binaries is Flex, which has a binary installer at
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html and good explanations on
> binaries at http://flex.apache.org/download-binaries.html
>
> IMO (but as I said I'm not an expert) what's important is that
>
> a) Our users can reuse the source code that we release without having
> more restrictions than the Apache License defines.
>
> b) If we distribute convenience binaries or tools that download those,
> we must do so in a responsible way, clearly informing our users of any
> licenses that are more restrictive in these binaries, and providing a
> simple and possibly automated way of checking the integrity of
> whatever our installers might download for them.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, the timing is quite good, given what's happening with Kenai. I imagine
that everything will transfer from NetBeans to Apache in stages, as
outlined near the start/middle of this thread. Indeed, plugins.netbeans.org
would be one of the last things to migrate, though many solutions are
imaginable, e.g., if not at Apache, then one of the organizations providing
individual contributors to NetBeans Apache might volunteer to host them,
for example. Or a university or school where NetBeans is used could
volunteer. In an absolutely worst case scenario, though still doable, every
author of a plugin would host that plugin themselves and we'd simply
aggregate all the update centers (i.e., these are simply XML files pointing
to the plugin binaries) from Apache. Even that is doable, though not ideal.
So solutions aplenty.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-15 14:15, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator PMC,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>>>
>>
>> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
>> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
>> proposal to chime in.
>>
>> Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
>> and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
>> the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
>> to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
>> Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
>> be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
>> no big deal.
>>
>> I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
>> of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
>> discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
>> that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
>> think the project can address this in due time.
>>
>
> One potential caveat is that plugins.netbeans.org, which is currently
> hosted by Oracle, will have to remain active as is, at least for the time
> being.
> But the transfer of the netbeans.org domain to the ASF also is part of
> the proposal.
> So, how will that work, and can (and will) Oracle remain hosting and
> managing it while the domain ownership has moved to Apache?
> Or maybe the domain transfer needs to be postponed, for this one reason?
>
> Furthermore, AFAICT all of the netbeans.org portal is hosted/running on
> Kenai.
> And Kenai is slated to be shutdown by Oracle next year April.
> So one way or the other, we (Apache, NetBeans project) will need to think
> of how to play this out.
>
>
>
>> Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
>> accepting NetBeans?
>>
>> I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
>> need to be discussed.
>>
>> -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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yes, I think this is outside the scope of this discussion. The WHY is
defined clearly: netbeans.org/community/apache-incubator.html

Feel free to drop me a mail off-thread about this.

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Mitch Claborn  wrote:

> I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF, etc,
> so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
>
> I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans to
> the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per day
> in my normal job.
>
> My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving will
> make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar move
> and experienced higher quality as a result?
>
>
> Mitch
>
>
> On 09/15/2016 07:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Incubator PMC,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
>>>
>>
>> At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
>> been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
>> proposal to chime in.
>>
>> Based on the discussions in this thread we have added Mark Struberg
>> and Jim Jagielski to the proposal as mentors. Daniel Gruno mentioned
>> the need for someone from ASF infra as a mentor, if needed it's easy
>> to add a mentor later, or Daniel just confirm if you want to join.
>> Emmanuel Lécharny was unsure and hasn't confirmed AFAICS, he can also
>> be removed from the list later on easily if he wants to leave, that's
>> no big deal.
>>
>> I have changed the SIR03 special infrastructure requirement (migration
>> of plugins.netbeans.org) to exclude it from the incubation process as
>> discussed here - we have envisioned possible solutions and realized
>> that incubating NetBeans is not necessarily dependent on that, and I
>> think the project can address this in due time.
>>
>> Are there other things to discuss that might affect our vote on
>> accepting NetBeans?
>>
>> I'm planning to start the vote in about 24 hours unless things still
>> need to be discussed.
>>
>> -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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I think one-on-one discovery would indeed be good -- not sure how that
progresses from here, though I can put you in touch directly with the
NetBeans build engineers who will be able to provide all the missing info.
[And, again, this is precisely one big benefit of NetBeans in Apache: we
will have transparent infrastructure and processes so that we will not be
dependent on specialized knowledge of one or two people but be able to
document and externalize this kind of information.]

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:28 PM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi Incubator PMC,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> >> ... https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal ...
> >
> > At this point I ask anyone with concerns or questions that haven't
> > been addressed so far and would prevent us from voting on this
> > proposal to chime in.
> >
>
> Yes, please don't start a vote just yet. There's still plenty of
> questions that need to be answered from an infrastructure perspective.
> This is a large project with lots of moving parts potentially moving
> into the ASF - 2 days really isn't enough discovery yet.
>
> I'll note that plenty of questions from my original list that haven't
> yet been answered.
>
> But here are a few more questions:
>
> The size of the binaries appears pretty large - what is the typical
> total size of all the binaries that you release at a single time? What
> are the typical download counts upon release/or bandwidth consumed. My
> suspicion is that you are pretty close to OpenOffice style numbers in
> terms of total size. That might cause some of our mirrors to balk at
> hosting/delivering your binaries.
>
> There appears to be 7 months before plugins.netbeans.o disappears.
> That isn't a lot of time, assuming that plugins.nb.o is not going to
> live at the ASF, what's the projects plans? Frankly, I worry that in 6
> months this will suddenly become a huge priority and that the project
> will ask the ASF to manage this. We may or may not have the resources
> to do so - we don't know what this involves in terms of space or
> bandwidth - and we would almost certainly expect the project to manage
> the application.
>
> Are you currently signing your binaries?
>
> What happens in 7 months to all of the old releases? Is your community
> the type that typically makes heavy use of old releases or are they
> constantly upgrading? or?
>
> What kind of release notification infrastructure do you have in place.
> I know there's been a 'help bubble' in place that tells folks of new
> versions in the past. Does that still exist. How is that notification
> authenticated? Are you planning on transferring all of that? If not,
> what happens to all of the old versions that no longer get alerts?
>
> Daniel: Since you volunteered for this, do you mind doing some
> one-on-one discovery with some of the project folks about their
> infrastructure, whats going to move, what isn't? What parts are
> crucial to the entire platform working, etc.? Then bring your findings
> back to the list?
>
> --David
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks a lot for the input, Leonardo! Great to have you part of the future
Apache NetBeans community. :-)

Gj

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Leonardo Loch Zanivan 
wrote:

> As a NetBeans community contributor and plugin maker, I'll try to clarify
> some points about how plugins work on NetBeans and how they're important.
>
> 1. Plugins can either upload a binary (NBM) or just an advertisement (with
> link to another site)
>
> 2. Plugins that upload a binary (NBM) can be downloaded by anyone using a
> Download button on the website.
>
> 3. Plugins can be Verified by the NetBeans team members, so they appear on
> Update Center from NetBeans IDE.
> 3.1. In order to a plugin get verified, it needs to be signed and have a
> license.
> 3.2. After each major NetBeans release, the plugin needs to be verified
> again.
>
> As you can see, there are more than one method for distributing a plugin,
> the easiest one is to upload a binary to plugin portal and directly
> distribute to anyone, without need signing or add license file, it's just a
> binary repository.
> The owner remains the plugin maker and a default license is assigned (I
> think).
>
> AFAIK, there are more than 1000+ NetBeans plugins available, some of them
> are very old, but they may work in recent versions of NetBeans (without
> verification).
>
> The thing is, the process of making a plugin or anything else available on
> maven central could be tough and complex for many developers and asking for
> everyone changing the plugin license is much worse.
>
> I see the current approach of NetBeans plugins portal with good eyes, but
> it could be improved of course, allowing Maven Artifacts for example (need
> to check how verification will work in this case).
>
> Anyway, it appears that plugins.netbeans.org is just a CMS and part of
> netbeans.org portal, so I don't see how to move to ASF infrastructure
> without bring the plugins part.
>
> Although, I think the discussion is about the binaries and not the plugins
> portal itself, binaries could be hosted anywhere with help of a third party
> company.
>
> BTW I'm a outsider (non Oracle), so I don't know nothing about
> infrastructure perspective.
>
> Regards,
> Leonardo Zanivan
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:02 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> >> >>> ...SIR03 Migration of plugin publication system,
> plugins.netbeans.org,
> >> to Apache infrastructure
> >> >
> >> > This looks to be an interesting. Are the plugins gated by license? Any
> >> > vetting going on? Is there a history of DMCA requests being served by
> >> > things uploaded to plugins.nb.o? How much bandwidth does this site
> >> > consume? Are their folks who can maintain this site from bare metal up
> >> > in the project?...
> >>
> >> The plugins.netbeans.org site says "plugins provided by community
> >> members and third-party companies" so I doubt Oracle has the rights to
> >> donate all that code to us. Sorry that we missed that during the
> >> proposal preparation phase.
> >>
> >> If that's correct I would suggest keeping the plugins.netbeans.org
> >> migration out of the incubation proposal, and letting Apache NetBeans
> >> handle that later. That might just be suggesting to move that code to
> >> GitHub and creating an alternate plugin installation mechanism that
> >> grabs whatever it needs there.
> >>
> >> It looks like those plugins are clearly "code associated with an
> >> Apache project" once NetBeans migrates to the ASF, but code that
> >> probably shouldn't belong to the ASF.
> >>
> >> Owners of specific plugins will still be able to donate them as well,
> >> separately, once Apache NetBeans is established, via our IP clearance
> >> mechanism, http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer. Who
from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?

Public servers:
- www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as user
management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
- hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are inactive
and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
provides 3rd party libraries.
- deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
projects.
- bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is the
server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
NetBeans Maven artifacts.
- downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download server
for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team control.
We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
Akami.
- statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans usage.
- plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
- forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
- services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.

Internal servers:
- nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly builds
and release builds are run.
- nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
repositories are generated.
- big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
- nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed for
internal users only via HTTP.
- Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.

Comments or follow up to the above?

Thanks,

Gj



On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
wrote:

> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> >
> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving NetBeans
> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not a
> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours per
> > day in my normal job.
> >
> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a similar
> > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
>
> As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
> planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
> Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
>
> Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
> software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
> wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decision making, and
> that will use our license and other structures.  The existing people
> actually coding NetBeans are making the proposal, and the Apache
> Incubator is happy to review it to see if it will fit here (seems like
> it will, albeit with plenty of licensing and infrastructure changes).
>
> Many people believe that in the long run it *will* make for a better
> product for users, because becoming an independently governed project at
> the ASF will draw in more code (and test, doc, plugin, etc.)
> contributors from new places to help improve the product.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> - Shane
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

I'm sure the physical machines themselves will not be donated. But the
space on them might, i.e., we could decide that some of the artifacts
should stay where they are. The source code, i.e., the active Mercurial
repos, should move to Apache Git, mirrored on Apache GitHub, ideally. The
process will be i imagine as described by Mark Struberg earlier in this
thread, i.e., quoting him below:

1.) lots of legal questions, code provenance and CLA checks, IP reviews etc
> 2.) Migrating hg to git. Not a big deal actually. Just add a github repo
> for it and add the hg url. Github does it for you. Then git clone this and
> move it to our canonical GIT repos. There was also a fast-export tool over
> at Petrs git repo ages ago.
> 3.) Identify and fix core parts which we cannot get re-licensed under ALv2
> but cannot be kept due to legal questions.
> Raphael is most probably right that NetBeans and OpenOffice share similar
> aspects when it comes to the setup. NetBeans is such a big project that we
> probably should get in touch with them as well.
> 4.) Migrate the community! THAT will be some serious effort I think. Many
> people are not aware of the pros and cons of running inside a well
> structured OSS foundation. Some people initially only see the positive
> aspects, others only the negative ones. The truth is: there is no free
> lunch. If you add structure you will loose flexibility. Without structure
> otoh you will melt down quickly.
> 5.) Build releases and distribute them.
> 6.) Empower the community to be able to manage itself in the spirit of a
> true ASF project.


Gj


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:53 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Sorry for top posting (phone), but of the machines listed, are any
> available to be migrated or donated to the ASF?  Or expected to be?
>
> Mac builds is an interesting topic on this as well.
>
> On Sep 15, 2016 6:36 PM, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
> Who
> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
> >
> > Public servers:
> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
> user
> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
> inactive
> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> > provides 3rd party libraries.
> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> > projects.
> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
> the
> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
> server
> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
> control.
> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> > Akami.
> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
> > usage.
> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
> >
> > Internal servers:
> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
> builds
> > and release builds are run.
> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> > repositories are generated.
> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
> for
> > internal users only via HTTP.
> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
> >
> > Comments or follow up to the above?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> &g

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thanks. Contacting him.

More info, this time statistics:

Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 8,281,256
Total Number of Files = 64927

Thanks,

Geertjan:



On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
> Who
> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
>
> Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
> humbed...@apache.org
>
> In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!
>
> --David
> >
> > Public servers:
> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
> user
> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
> inactive
> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
> > provides 3rd party libraries.
> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> > projects.
> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
> the
> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it provides
> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
> server
> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
> control.
> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow by
> > Akami.
> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
> usage.
> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for bugzilla
> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
> >
> > Internal servers:
> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
> builds
> > and release builds are run.
> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
> > repositories are generated.
> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
> for
> > internal users only via HTTP.
> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
> >
> > Comments or follow up to the above?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
> >> > I'm very new in this type of thing. I have zero experience with ASF,
> >> > etc, so if this is out of line, please forgive and I'll keep silent.
> >> >
> >> > I've seen a lot of discussion about the HOW in terms of moving
> NetBeans
> >> > to the Apache project, but not much/any discussion about WHY. I'm not
> a
> >> > NetBeans coder/contributor, but simply someone who uses it 8+ hours
> per
> >> > day in my normal job.
> >> >
> >> > My main question is: will moving NetBeans to Apache result in a better
> >> > product for people like me? If so, what particular aspects of moving
> >> > will make that happen? Are there other projects that have made a
> similar
> >> > move and experienced higher quality as a result?
> >>
> >> As Bertrand noted else-thread: the move is because the actual people
> >> planning to *work on the code* want to make the move (and obviously
> >> Oracle is happy to help with the IP donations).
> >>
> >> Apache is here to help communities of individual contributors build
> >> software products for the public good.  We welcome any community that
> >> wants to use the Apache Way of open, collaborative decis

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Of the 32 repos in Mercurial, not all are active. We assume we'll have
Git-style development under Apache, with pull requests. That is, however, a
different working/infrastructure style than we have had in Oracle, with
parallel integration (http://wiki.netbeans.org/HgParallelProjectIntegration).
Thus, many of the repos are only there to participate in the parallel
integration (core-main, jet-main, web-main, etc.) We don't believe it is a
requirement to migrate all of those repos, probably we won't even need
them, when we analyze the infrastructure migration in detail during
incubation. However, the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
another download area under Apache. We believe
http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/ should be enough for that.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. Contacting him.
>
> More info, this time statistics:
>
> Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 8,281,256
> Total Number of Files = 64927
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geertjan:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build engineer.
>> Who
>> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
>>
>> Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
>> humbed...@apache.org
>>
>> In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!
>>
>> --David
>> >
>> > Public servers:
>> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
>> user
>> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
>> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
>> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
>> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main, ergonomics),
>> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
>> inactive
>> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https. The
>> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication for
>> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The special
>> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains and
>> > provides 3rd party libraries.
>> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
>> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
>> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
>> > projects.
>> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and is
>> the
>> > server for Javahelp and JNLP. The Nexus server runs there and it
>> provides
>> > NetBeans Maven artifacts.
>> > - downloads.oracle.com and updates.netbeans.org: The main download
>> server
>> > for installers and update centers. Bits are in fact published on Akami
>> > servers all over the world. The server is not under NetBeans team
>> control.
>> > We only upload data to a specific place and they are processed somehow
>> by
>> > Akami.
>> > - statistics.netbeans.org: A machine providing statistics on NetBeans
>> usage.
>> > - plugins.netbeans.org: The server for community plugins.
>> > - forums.netbenas.org: NetBeans forums.
>> > - services.netbeans.org: Services such as anti spam filters for
>> bugzilla
>> > are here, as well as weekly NetBeans newsletter maintenance.
>> >
>> > Internal servers:
>> > - nbbuilder: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where nightly
>> builds
>> > and release builds are run.
>> > - nbbuilder2: 5 VMs. The Hudson server with its slaves, where Maven
>> > repositories are generated.
>> > - big-mac: Physical machine used for Mac OS X installers.
>> > - nbstrorage: Internal storage for all NetBeans bits, access is allowed
>> for
>> > internal users only via HTTP.
>> > - Oracle signing server: NetBeans build jobs using Oracle signing
>> > infrastructure for signing installers and NBMs.
>> >
>> > Comments or follow up to the above?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Gj
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Shane Curcuru 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mitch Claborn wrote on 9/15/16 11:07 AM:
>> >> > I'm very new in this type of th

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Commit Before Review - unless the change is an API change - then we use
review before integration and the review is done in bugzilla.

Committers never directly push to the cannonical repo master branch. That
branch is closed for integration. In Git terminology, each team (jet-main,
web-main, core-main, ergonomics) has it's own branch and only if all checks
pass is the branch merged into the master branch automatically.

Yes, before a doing a release there is a manual stabilisation phase.

Gerrit has never been used by the NetBeans team.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> That goes into a direction I was about to ask anyway, the development
> model:
>
> Is it CTR (commit-then-review) or RTC (review-then-commit).
>
> Means do committers directly push to the cannonical repo master branch and
> before doing a release there is a manual stabilisation phase? Or do you
> only apply finished features?
>
> Question is whether we need Gerrit or something similar. Or is plain GIT
> enough?
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, 16 September 2016, 7:01, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> >Of the 32 repos in Mercurial, not all are active. We assume we'll have
> >Git-style development under Apache, with pull requests. That is, however,
> a
> >different working/infrastructure style than we have had in Oracle, with
> >parallel integration (http://wiki.netbeans.org/
> HgParallelProjectIntegration).
> >Thus, many of the repos are only there to participate in the parallel
> >integration (core-main, jet-main, web-main, etc.) We don't believe it is a
> >requirement to migrate all of those repos, probably we won't even need
> >them, when we analyze the infrastructure migration in detail during
> >incubation. However, the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
> >to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
> >another download area under Apache. We believe
> >http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/ should be enough for that.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Geertjan
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> >geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks. Contacting him.
> >>
> >> More info, this time statistics:
> >>
> >> Total Physical Source Lines of Code = 8,281,256
> >> Total Number of Files = 64927
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Geertjan:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:22 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > Notes on the NetBeans infrastructure from the NetBeans build
> engineer.
> >>> Who
> >>> > from Apache infra is going to do 1:1 discovery?
> >>>
> >>> Daniel Gruno will - feel free to reach out directly to him at
> >>> humbed...@apache.org
> >>>
> >>> In the meantime, this is a good but of information, Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> --David
> >>> >
> >>> > Public servers:
> >>> > - www.netbeans.org: The core of the netbeans.org project, as well as
> >>> user
> >>> > management, bugzilla, and mailing lists.
> >>> > - hg.netbeans.org: 1 VM with 32 Mercurial repositories. The main
> >>> > repositories are main-golden, main-silver, releases, and all team
> >>> > repositories (core-main, cnd-main, jet-main, profiler-main,
> ergonomics),
> >>> > localization repository (releases/l10n). Several of the repos are
> >>> inactive
> >>> > and don't need to be migrated. Repos are available via http/https.
> The
> >>> > server doesn’t have its own authentication mechanism. Authentication
> for
> >>> > pushes is realized via JSON request from www.netbeans.org. The
> special
> >>> > directory http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries/ on the server contains
> and
> >>> > provides 3rd party libraries.
> >>> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of
> changes
> >>> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including
> jobs
> >>> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> >>> > projects.
> >>> > - bits.netbeans.org: 1 VM, which is the backup download server and
> is
> >>> the
> >>> > server for Javahe

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Take note of the earlier points re parallel integration (
http://wiki.netbeans.org/HgParallelProjectIntegration), which is different
to the GitHub approach, which we are happy to adopt, so a lot of the
current complexities will not be applicable anymore.

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Andrew Bayer 
wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > - deadlock.netbeans.org: 6 VMs, used mainly for propagation of changes
> > between team repositories and to the releases repository, including jobs
> > for building community plugins (releases*-au) and jobs for prototype
> > projects.
> >
>
> I'm confused, I think - the team repositories are subsets of the releases
> repository?
>
> A.
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

No one said we want to keep that many subdomains. We're simply listing our
current infrastructure at this point. I'd say we probably need a lot less
than we currently have.

Gj

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
wrote:

> On 16.09.2016 00:36, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Public servers:
>> - www.netbeans.org: ...
>> - hg.netbeans.org: ...
>> - deadlock.netbeans.org: ...
>> - bits.netbeans.org: ...
>> - updates.netbeans.org: ...
>> - statistics.netbeans.org: ...
>> - plugins.netbeans.org: ...
>> - forums.netbenas.org: ...
>> - services.netbeans.org: ...
>>
>
> I am wondering... is having several subdomains a problem for infra?
>
> I did hear things in this direction, but since I was not directly involved
> I may have missed the important detail. Maybe someone from infra reads this
> and can answer?
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

The thing is that a lot of the NetBeans infrastructure has built up and
expanded over the 20 years of its existence. The Apache incubator is going
to be a great moment in which to evaluate what we want to keep and what
should be discarded and how these various pieces fit into Apache's
structures. All software is kind of similar in these requirements, there's
not going to be anything that we can't solve in one way or another. Yes,
several questions remain and Daniel Gruno is now in direct contact with the
NetBeans build engineer and others from the NetBeans team knowledgeable in
this area.

Gj

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:53 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> > On 16.09.2016 00:36, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > [...]
> >>
> >> Public servers:
> >> - www.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - hg.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - deadlock.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - bits.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - updates.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - statistics.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - plugins.netbeans.org: ...
> >> - forums.netbenas.org: ...
> >> - services.netbeans.org: ...
> >
> >
> > I am wondering... is having several subdomains a problem for infra?
> >
> > I did hear things in this direction, but since I was not directly
> involved I
> > may have missed the important detail. Maybe someone from infra reads this
> > and can answer?
> >
>
> No technical reason why we can't do this.
>
> --David
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Nightly builds is all that's needed, indeed, no one needs to announce them,
they should simply be available. Agreed it's important to distinguish
between nightly builds and official releases, that's exactly how NetBeans
works currently. The #1 requirement here is that there should be nightly
builds and that is supported, from your response here.

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > ...the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
> > to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
> > another download area under Apache
>
> Daily releases are problematic in Apache projects as the PMC needs to
> approve releases, and in general those votes last at least 72 hours
> due to our async collaboration model.
>
> AFAIK Apache Cordova for example is making very frequent releases, it
> might be interesting to find out how they enable that, in due time.
>
> Nightly builds should not be announced outside of the project's
> developers mailing lists, to mark a clear line between those and
> official releases.
>
> All those things can be discussed during incubation of course, just
> wanted to mention them due to the above #1 requirement.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

Can we be specific about what info is needed, or what further details
specifically, before going into a vote for acceptance of the proposal? My
concern is that each question we answer is answered by further questions to
answer. Maybe we could do a phone conference with the NetBeans
infrastructure side together with the Apache infrastructure side. Maybe we
can work through the infrastructure challenges during incubation.

It is clear that the current complexities of the NetBeans Mercurial
repositories is because of the specific style of working that the NetBeans
team has had, while will be moved to the standard Git way of working, which
will reduce the number of repositories significantly, while also
standardizing the process of working with NetBeans source code via the
adoption of the standard Apache way of doing so. The various different
servers and VMs that NetBeans has needed have also clearly been built up
over time and are not a mandatory requirement either, here too we'd like to
adopt the standard Apache approach as much as possible. The hosting of the
NetBeans plugins is not an immediate problem and we could solve it by
asking one or more of the individual committers to request their
organizations to host those plugins. Many of those plugins are old or not
maintained anymore and the total number that we would want to continue
making available could shrink significantly, also because NetBeans is
focused far more on 'out of the box' features than on plugins.

Our willingness to comply to standard structures and services provided by
Apache, while having a large community that could provide services we need
that Apache can't provide should give confidence that the incubation
process will be a success.

Thanks,

Geertjan



On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:23 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Actually, I think a nightly build artifact would only be supported via
> Jenkins.  Travis can upload to things like nexus, but I don't believe we
> publish our credentials outside of the environment.
>
> This may also be a use case for jenkins pipelines, to orchestrate the build
> steps required programmatically via a groovy DSL instead of job configs.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:19 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >  wrote:
> > > ...The #1 requirement here is that there should be nightly
> > > builds and that is supported, from your response here...
> >
> > Yes, definitely, for that there's at least Jenkins at
> > https://builds.apache.org/ and Travis,
> > https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_gains_additional_travis_ci
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

This is the applicable repo to be cloning:

hg clone http://hg.netbeans.org/main/

See the related FAQ on the NetBeans Wiki:

http://wiki.netbeans.org/DevFaqAccessSourcesUsingMercurial

Gj

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> quick update.
>
>
> hg cloned it locally and now batch importing over here.
> The hg clone took me 3 hours and the import is now running for 4 hours.
>
> Maybe that is the problem why github failed.
>
> I'm now at 89000/303000 in the import step.
>
> If I succeed then I'll push it to github.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:24, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> > > btw, I tried to import the netbeans-core repo from hg into github and
> it failed.
> > Now trying to manually import it...
> >
> > Did anybody else do that?
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>  On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:22, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >  wrote:
> >>  > +1
> >>
> >>
> >>>   -Original Message-
> >>>   From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> >>>   Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 00:46
> >>>   To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >>>   Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
> >>>
> >>>   On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> >>>   geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   > Hi all,
> >>>   >
> >>>   > Can we be specific about what info is needed, or what further
> > details
> >>>   > specifically, before going into a vote for acceptance of the
> > proposal?
> >>>   My
> >>>   > concern is that each question we answer is answered by further
> >>>   questions to
> >>>   > answer. Maybe we could do a phone conference with the NetBeans
> >>>   > infrastructure side together with the Apache infrastructure side.
> >>>   Maybe we
> >>>   > can work through the infrastructure challenges during incubation.
> >>>   >
> >>>
> >>>   Generally speaking, Apache would prefer to slow things down and use a
> >>>   mailing list, rather than to have a phone conference. The email is
> >>>   documented for everybody to review, to participate, and to record for
> >>>   future examination. A phone conference probably wouldn't resolve
> > many
> >>>   questions/concerns anyway, simply because much of that comes from
> >>>   considered thought. A phone call is "THINK NOW. RESPOND. OOPS.
> > MISSED
> >>>   YOUR
> >>>   CHANCE." ... Mailing lists give people time to think.
> >>>
> >>>   There is no rush, no dates, no deadlines at the ASF. It may take
> > longer
> >>>   via
> >>>   mailing lists, but it means that the larger community can be
> involved,
> >>>   can
> >>>   review, and can be archived.
> >>>
> >>>   If one question turns into three ... well, that is deliberation. As
> >>>   David
> >>>   noted else-thread, we rarely get such a large, well-established
> >>>   community
> >>>   arriving at the Incubator. That necessitates a bit more inquiry than
> >>>   most
> >>>   other entrants receive. Layers of the onion get peeled, and new
> >>>   questions
> >>>   arrive. More layers unpeeled ...
> >>>
> >>>   And to point to the elephant in the room: I bet there are people
> >>>   concerned
> >>>   given the recent misadventures of AOO [and Oracle's donations of
> > these
> >>>   two
> >>>   projects]. Personally, I think it is hogwash, and don't believe
> > any
> >>>   concern
> >>>   applies here, as the communities and the userbase are very different.
> >>>   BUT,
> >>>   temporally, there is a conflation of the donations of these two
> >>>   projects. I
> >>>   suspect that will cause a few people to slow down and ask more
> >>>   questions.
> >>>
> >>>   Cheers,
> >>>   -g
> >>
> >>
> >>  -
> >>  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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On 19.09.2016 1:10, Raphael Bircher wrote:

> One Mail also complained about the Initial Committer list. Are all
> active committers who did commit in the last 6 month (or so) on the
> initial committer list. forgotten people can create bad blood and
> disappointment. The committers are the most value part of a project.


Hello Rapael,

This really is not a problem. :-) If we were to have included everyone who
has committed to NetBeans over the past 6 months, plus all the others who
should really be on the initial committers list, we would have had hundreds
of initial committers. :-) We decided to keep the initial committers list
short and focused on showing that there's an Oracle commitment as well as
commitment from individual contributors from a number of different
companies [and in several cases multiple individual contributors from the
same company].

There are a number of complications in this proposal, indeed, though this
is not one of them.

Hope that clarifies.

Geertjan

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Raphael Bircher 
wrote:

> Hi Geertjan
>
> I'm registred at NetBeams now, to get a closer look at the project. I
> was a bit shocked about the similarities with the formar
> OpenOffice.org project. The structure of the Project, the workflow
> etc. are so close to the OpenOffice.org project, much closer as I
> expected. My biggest fear for the incubation is not the technical
> aspect. For infrastructure we will find solutions, and for many
> problems exist already blueprints from the OpenOffice Project. My
> biggest fear ist the community. As I saw on the NetBeans ML, the
> decision to join the ASF was made by Oracle. Well a load of the
> community members welcome this step, but there are also fears. This
> fears has to be addressed, this is very very important.
>
> One Mail also complained about the Initial Committer list. Are all
> active committers who did commit in the last 6 month (or so) on the
> initial committer list. forgotten people can create bad blood and
> disappointment. The committers are the most value part of a project.
>
> This are at the moment my biggest concerns.
>
> Regards Raphael
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Nightly builds is all that's needed, indeed, no one needs to announce
> them,
> > they should simply be available. Agreed it's important to distinguish
> > between nightly builds and official releases, that's exactly how NetBeans
> > works currently. The #1 requirement here is that there should be nightly
> > builds and that is supported, from your response here.
> >
> > Geertjan
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >>  wrote:
> >> > ...the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
> >> > to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
> >> > another download area under Apache
> >>
> >> Daily releases are problematic in Apache projects as the PMC needs to
> >> approve releases, and in general those votes last at least 72 hours
> >> due to our async collaboration model.
> >>
> >> AFAIK Apache Cordova for example is making very frequent releases, it
> >> might be interesting to find out how they enable that, in due time.
> >>
> >> Nightly builds should not be announced outside of the project's
> >> developers mailing lists, to mark a clear line between those and
> >> official releases.
> >>
> >> All those things can be discussed during incubation of course, just
> >> wanted to mention them due to the above #1 requirement.
> >>
> >> -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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On 19.09.2016 1:10, Raphael Bircher wrote:

> My biggest fear ist the community. As I saw on the NetBeans ML, the
> decision to join the ASF was made by Oracle. Well a load of the
> community members welcome this step, but there are also fears. This
> fears has to be addressed, this is very very important.


You are right. There are mixed feelings about this move. However, by far
the majority are strongly in favor. Yesterday at JavaOne, we discussed this
move at length in a number of sessions and James Gosling, the most
respected individual contributor on the initial committers list (who sent
his ICL the second he was invited to join the project, i.e., even before
the proposal was submitted) said he is "unspeakably thrilled" about
NetBeans in the context of Apache.

Indeed, there are going to be people who are negative about this. Some have
said that Apache is a "burial ground". I disagree with that and I think
that is nonsense. However, just because one or two people say that does not
mean I think any differently about Apache.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Raphael Bircher 
wrote:

> Hi Geertjan
>
> I'm registred at NetBeams now, to get a closer look at the project. I
> was a bit shocked about the similarities with the formar
> OpenOffice.org project. The structure of the Project, the workflow
> etc. are so close to the OpenOffice.org project, much closer as I
> expected. My biggest fear for the incubation is not the technical
> aspect. For infrastructure we will find solutions, and for many
> problems exist already blueprints from the OpenOffice Project. My
> biggest fear ist the community. As I saw on the NetBeans ML, the
> decision to join the ASF was made by Oracle. Well a load of the
> community members welcome this step, but there are also fears. This
> fears has to be addressed, this is very very important.
>
> One Mail also complained about the Initial Committer list. Are all
> active committers who did commit in the last 6 month (or so) on the
> initial committer list. forgotten people can create bad blood and
> disappointment. The committers are the most value part of a project.
>
> This are at the moment my biggest concerns.
>
> Regards Raphael
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Nightly builds is all that's needed, indeed, no one needs to announce
> them,
> > they should simply be available. Agreed it's important to distinguish
> > between nightly builds and official releases, that's exactly how NetBeans
> > works currently. The #1 requirement here is that there should be nightly
> > builds and that is supported, from your response here.
> >
> > Geertjan
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >>  wrote:
> >> > ...the #1 requirement is for Apache NetBeans to be able
> >> > to produce daily/release builds and to upload them to netbeans.org or
> >> > another download area under Apache
> >>
> >> Daily releases are problematic in Apache projects as the PMC needs to
> >> approve releases, and in general those votes last at least 72 hours
> >> due to our async collaboration model.
> >>
> >> AFAIK Apache Cordova for example is making very frequent releases, it
> >> might be interesting to find out how they enable that, in due time.
> >>
> >> Nightly builds should not be announced outside of the project's
> >> developers mailing lists, to mark a clear line between those and
> >> official releases.
> >>
> >> All those things can be discussed during incubation of course, just
> >> wanted to mention them due to the above #1 requirement.
> >>
> >> -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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On 18.09.2016 9:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> There is no rush, no dates, no deadlines at the ASF. It may take longer via
> mailing lists, but it means that the larger community can be involved, can
> review, and can be archived.



Makes sense -- and indeed the more details we have up front the better, the
more we can scope out what needs to be done, the better.

Thanks,

Geertjan

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On 19.09.2016 11:42 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:

> If I succeed then I'll push it to github.


>From the NetBeans side, we assume this is basically an experiment at this
stage - we will look at the results and this is a very interesting
experiment.

There could be different approaches. For example, when doing a conversion
of this scale, we think it could be appropriate to consider splitting the
repository into several smaller repositories. It is not completely clear
how to split it, we could discuss different approaches, but we could start
with a split per cluster and then doing adjustments as needed.

In all cases, we would strongly suggest to keep history, but we assume you
are keeping it.

Thanks,

Geertjan




On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> quick update.
>
>
> hg cloned it locally and now batch importing over here.
> The hg clone took me 3 hours and the import is now running for 4 hours.
>
> Maybe that is the problem why github failed.
>
> I'm now at 89000/303000 in the import step.
>
> If I succeed then I'll push it to github.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:24, Mark Struberg
>  wrote:
> > > btw, I tried to import the netbeans-core repo from hg into github and
> it failed.
> > Now trying to manually import it...
> >
> > Did anybody else do that?
> >
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>  On Sunday, 18 September 2016, 18:22, Dennis E. Hamilton
> >  wrote:
> >>  > +1
> >>
> >>
> >>>   -Original Message-
> >>>   From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> >>>   Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 00:46
> >>>   To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >>>   Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
> >>>
> >>>   On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> >>>   geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>   > Hi all,
> >>>   >
> >>>   > Can we be specific about what info is needed, or what further
> > details
> >>>   > specifically, before going into a vote for acceptance of the
> > proposal?
> >>>   My
> >>>   > concern is that each question we answer is answered by further
> >>>   questions to
> >>>   > answer. Maybe we could do a phone conference with the NetBeans
> >>>   > infrastructure side together with the Apache infrastructure side.
> >>>   Maybe we
> >>>   > can work through the infrastructure challenges during incubation.
> >>>   >
> >>>
> >>>   Generally speaking, Apache would prefer to slow things down and use a
> >>>   mailing list, rather than to have a phone conference. The email is
> >>>   documented for everybody to review, to participate, and to record for
> >>>   future examination. A phone conference probably wouldn't resolve
> > many
> >>>   questions/concerns anyway, simply because much of that comes from
> >>>   considered thought. A phone call is "THINK NOW. RESPOND. OOPS.
> > MISSED
> >>>   YOUR
> >>>   CHANCE." ... Mailing lists give people time to think.
> >>>
> >>>   There is no rush, no dates, no deadlines at the ASF. It may take
> > longer
> >>>   via
> >>>   mailing lists, but it means that the larger community can be
> involved,
> >>>   can
> >>>   review, and can be archived.
> >>>
> >>>   If one question turns into three ... well, that is deliberation. As
> >>>   David
> >>>   noted else-thread, we rarely get such a large, well-established
> >>>   community
> >>>   arriving at the Incubator. That necessitates a bit more inquiry than
> >>>   most
> >>>   other entrants receive. Layers of the onion get peeled, and new
> >>>   questions
> >>>   arrive. More layers unpeeled ...
> >>>
> >>>   And to point to the elephant in the room: I bet there are people
> >>>   concerned
> >>>   given the recent misadventures of AOO [and Oracle's donations of
> > these
> >>>   two
> >>>   projects]. Personally, I think it is hogwash, and don't believe
> > any
> >>>   concern
> >>>   applies here, as the communities and the userbase are very different.
> >>>   BUT,
> >>>   temporally, there is a conflation of the donations of these two
> >>>   projects. I
> >>>   suspect that will cause a few people to slow down and ask more
> >>>   questions.
> >>>
> >>>   Cheers,
> >>>   -g
> >>
> >>
> >>  -
> >>  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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
> used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
> of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
> wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?


Very many more will be added once we enter incubation.

I put the initial list of committers together. The initial list reflect an
initial list of committers coming from Oracle [though several more will be
added later] as well as an initial list of committers from companies
committed to NetBeans primarily because their software, e.g., at Airbus and
European Space Agency, depends on it.

A growing list of developers have indicated they'd like to be added too.
We'll start doing that as indicated in the propopsal -- as soon as the
proposal has been voted on, accepted, and entered into incubation.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I've recently had an inquiry from a former Sun employee who
> used to hack on NetBeans way back when: how was the list
> of initial committers determined? Or more importantly, if he
> wants to be added to that list up-front would that be OK?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Attached to this message is a proposed new project - Apache NetBeans, a
> > development environment, tooling platform, and application framework.
> >
> > The text of the proposal is included below. Additionally, the proposal is
> > in draft form on the Wiki, where we will make any required changes:
> >
> > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
> >
> > We look forward to your feedback and input.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Geertjan
> >
> > 
> >
> > = NetBeans Proposal =
> >
> > == Abstract ==
> >
> > NetBeans is an open source development environment, tooling platform,
> > and application framework, used by 1.5 million individuals each month.
> >
> > == Proposal ==
> >
> > Apache NetBeans will continue to focus on the areas it has focused on
> > while sponsored by Sun Microsystems and Oracle. It will continue to
> > primarily focus on providing tools for the Java ecosystem, while also
> > being focused on tools for other ecosystems, languages and
> > technologies, such as JavaScript, PHP, and C/C++. It will continue to
> > actively support its community by means of mailing lists, tutorials,
> > and documentation.
> >
> > == Background ==
> >
> > NetBeans started in 1995/96 in Prague, in the Czech Republic, as a
> > student project. Sun Microsystems acquired and open sourced it in 2000
> > and, with the acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle in 2010,
> > became part of Oracle. Throughout its history in Sun Microsystems and
> > Oracle, NetBeans has been free and open source and has been leveraged
> > by its sponsor as a mechanism for driving the Java ecosystem forward.
> >
> > == Rationale ==
> >
> > Although NetBeans is already open source, moving it to a neutral place
> > like Apache, with its strong governance model, is expected to help get
> > more contributions from various organizations. For example, large
> > companies are using NetBeans as an application framework to build
> > internal or commercial applications and are much more likely to
> > contribute to it once it moves to neutral Apache ground. At the same
> > time, though Oracle will relinquish its control over NetBeans,
> > individual contributors from Oracle are expected to continue
> > contributing to NetBeans after it has been contributed to Apache,
> > together with individual contributors from other organizations, as
> > well as self-employed individual contributors.
> >
> > == Initial Goals ==
> >
> > The initial goals of the NetBeans contribution under the Apache
> > umbrella are to establish a new home for an already fully functioning
> > project and to open up the governance model so as to simplify and
> > streamline contributions from the community.
> >
> > == Current Status ==
> >
> > Meritocracy: NetBeans has been run by Oracle, with the majority of
> > code contributions coming from Oracle. The specific reason for moving
> > to Apache is to expand the diversity of contributors and to increase
> > the level of meritocracy in NetBeans. Apache NetBeans will be actively
> > seeking new contributors and will welcome them warmly and provide a
> > friendly and productive environment for purposes

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Roman Shaposhnik wrote:

> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
> criteria
> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?


Let's stop wasting time -- just provide his name so it can be added to the
list, thanks.

Geertjan

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> >  wrote:
> >> ...Please note that during the incubation people need to either show
> that they
> >> are eager to engage with the community...
> >
> > Indeed, but for a well established project like NetBeans I suppose the
> > initial committers will recognize some people as soon as they show up,
> > as contributors to NetBeans before Apache, and suggest electing them
> > quicker than if they were unknown. With such a large project it's
> > probably impossible to create a fully fair initial list of committers,
> > and fixing that shortly after entering incubation is fine.
>
> That's what I was asking about. In particular, the person who was inquiring
> me off-line about this proposal 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.
>
> Given the size of the pool of potential candidates like that, I'm not
> saying
> we should block the VOTE until we get the initial committer list just
> right.
>
> Still, the question remain -- for somebody like that, what would be a
> criteria
> to be added as a committer after the project enters incubation?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
> invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that the
> whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence project
> decisions.


Yes, once we are in incubation we will do that. We are not in incubation
yet and I feel we are wasting time with this discussion, I haven't seen
anyone actually caring about whether they're on the initial committers list
or not. We as a community don't care about whatever status that brings, to
be honest. I'd prefer to stop talking about the initial committers list, to
be honest at this point, there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at
this stage. :-)

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
wrote:

> Agree - but the initial committer list is also an opportunity to show
> you really mean open development, and that it's not just business as
> usual with Friends & Family on the list.
>
> One of the freedoms a project gains from moving to ASF is (somewhat)
> relief from institutional political considerations.  A new intern at a
> company would no longer just be given carte blance write access
> without first engaging with the whole community and earning merit
> through contributions. Of course each community decides how high or
> low the bar should be to earn committership - but the bar should be
> the same for anyone.
>
>
> I found for several podlings that people (myself included) who were
> perhaps dormant "contributors" before the Incubator 'woke up' after
> being added as an equal peer on the initial list. The beginning of a
> podling; while sometimes struggling a bit with bootstrapping, is also
> a chance for a project to review many of its practices and to build
> common ownership - reduce the "us and them" feeling.
>
> I think Netbeans has the balance somewhat right - but I would hope
> there would be more engagement on their existing lists to more openly
> invite anyone who wants to join; or at least make it clear that the
> whole of the community (read: mailing list) gets to influence project
> decisions.
>
> On 22 September 2016 at 09:48, 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 the initial list, I
> >> understand, think it is fine, and agree that being added once we get
> into
> >> the actual incubation phase makes sense...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > As someone who has mentored several projects here in the last ten
> > years or so I think although people sometimes see a lot of value in
> > being on the initial committers list they should not, IMO.
> >
> > What very often happens during incubation is some people who were on
> > this list almost never contribute to the project, and other expected
> > or unexpected people show up, do great things and get elected as a
> > result.
> >
> > Also, as mentor I will recommend reviewing the list of committers and
> > PMC members shortly before graduation, to give the opportunity to
> > people who didn't actually become active to gracefully retire - if the
> > project governance works it's easy to come back later by becoming
> > active, and the project benefits from having a roster that reflects
> > the reality of active contributors.
> >
> > So in summary people shouldn't put too much value on the initial list
> > of committers, it's just that - an initial list, a kind of draft that
> > will evolve during incubation, and probably evolve a lot for a large
> > project such as NetBeans.
> >
> >> ...I am able to contribute as much as I can at this stage anyways...
> >
> > Indeed, and that stays true once incubation starts. Even though an
> > Apache PMC ultimately makes all the project decisions, they are
> > expected to listen to their community. The "community" section at
> > https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-
> maturity-model.html
> > expresses that.
> >
> >> ...getting into building a thorough list before hand will
> >> certainly take time away from higher priority items at this stage...
> >
> > Yes, that's why the NetBeans mentors pushed to avoid adding people to
> > the list of initial committers before the incubation vote starts, as
> > for a popular project that's a lot of work with no real value as
> > mentioned above.
> >
> > Thanks for your understanding and for your contributions so far!
> >
> > -Bertrand, with my NetBeans mentor hat on
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsu

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Hi all,

Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list thanks
to meeting John Ament this afternoon.

The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the list
will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically be
contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list will
need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process that
could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion in
the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors list is
automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list after
the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors list
and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end of
the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those who
haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not be
removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.

I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
misunderstood.

If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial contributors
list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra assessment.

The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto the
initial contributors list:

1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or so
who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as at
least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin to
the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not sure
how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I estimate
potentially around 20.

2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past 6
months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the plugin
authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided by
developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of Apache
NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who have
worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
contributors from this category number at least about 20.

3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the past
and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration, as
well as several others, including Radim Kubacki (developer of
NBAndroid.org) and Jesse Glick, as well as Ralph Ruijs, plus several more.
In this category, I estimate about 10 to 20 people might be applicable.

4. Random other people, e.g., Wade Chandler, who has been participating in
this thread, and has been working recently on Groovy enhancements for
NetBeans IDE. This is not a separate plugin and there are other cases where
there are potential individual contributors who don't fall into the above
categories.

5. Anyone else who I may have skipped above, e.g., the person Roman was
referring to earlier, and anyone who volunteers after we send a few e-mails
to the various NetBeans mailing lists.

6. A final point about "intent" and "interest" in John Ament's mail above.
There are two types of these -- those that are definitely going to be
contributing because their software depends on NetBeans, e.g., Microchip's
MPLAB X is an IDE on top of NetBeans IDE, and the related developers have a
very strong interest in committing themselves to Apache NetBeans. I propose
we do keep this category of people in the initial contributors list, which
is why I put them there initially -- they are different to someone who may
have a vague idea about one day maybe contributing. This may seem a strange
category and the argument could be made that they should only be added once
they actually contribute during incubation. For this category, however,
since their interest is so strong and visceral because their business
literally depends on NetBeans, we keep them in the initial contributors
list and, in the unlikely event t

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
complete as possible.

What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
then after than make the changes?

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Responses in line.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Geertjan,
> >
> > I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
> > clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > ...Anyone on the list
> > > will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
> be
> > > contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
> >
> > They will be commiters to be precise.
> >
>
> Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor == ASF
> committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
> how that evolves.
>
>
> >
> > > Anyone not on the list will
> > > need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
> that
> > > could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
> in
> > > the initial contributors list...
> >
> > It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one
> vote
> > for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
> >
>
> Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
> someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come up
> to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.
>
>
> >
> > > Everyone on the initial contributors list is
> > > automatically part of the PMC.
> >
> > There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
> >
> > That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
> > podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
> > foundation level.
> >
> > In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but
> really
> > in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
> >
>
> It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We hope
> that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
> incubation.
>
>
> >
> > > ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> > > incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their
> life...
> >
> > That's correct, but there can be a difference between the committers and
> > PMC members once the project graduates. As a mentor, when graduating I
> > would not accept a PMC member who has not contributed during incubation
> for
> > example, whereas a committer that hasn't really been active during
> > incubation is harmless.
> >
> > Committers don't have formal power once the project graduates, and if
> they
> > don't behave their commits rights can easily be suspended, temporarily or
> > permanently. That very rarely happens, just mentioning it to clarify the
> > risks.
> >
>
> That's... odd to say the least.  I'm not aware of any specific cases,
> doesn't mean it hasn't' happened, but I can't think of any cases where it
> has (other than one special case recently of someone being asked out of the
> organization...)
>
>
> >
> > In summary, what you don't want in an Apache project is poisonous PMC
> > members, so in my view to be on the PMC once graduating people will have
> to
> > demonstrate during incubation that they are making positive contributions
> > to it - just being on the initial list of committers doesn't count
> towards
> > that, in my book.
> >
> > > ...If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> > contributors
> > > list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> > assessment...
> >
> > I still don't think that's required and should be avoided if it delays
> the
> > vote for NetBeans acceptance, as the list of committers can be modified
> > during incubation with just a bit of additional work.
> >
>
> I don't think this will add a l

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

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 standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.


> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part of
> netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.


When we in the NetBeans community talk about "plugins", we only mean those
made available via plugins.netbeans.org. We have various companies
interested in hosting these, e.g., Microchip (microchip.com) and Dukehoff (
dukehoff.com), though there could be more. The problem is going to be which
of the available companies to select for hosting the plugins as well as the
application at plugins.netbeans.org for accessing those plugins.

Gj

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> 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? 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.
>>
>
> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE with
> the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the (L)GPled
> plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according to
> https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, PHP,
> C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix of GPL,
> LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an netbeans IDE
> download that mixes these through.
>
> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part of
> netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>
> I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

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 far better to just start incubation at this point
> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.


The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers list
extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not on
the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.) Others
consider the initial committers list to be an indicator of the diversity of
the individual contributors who will be involved in the project -- and
that's the approach we've been following so far since the mentors for
Apache NetBeans have told us that this is the approach to take.

However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as complete
a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.

My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to take
the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible and
provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for this.
>From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until this
has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.

Thanks,

Gj

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>
> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform and no IDE.
>
>
> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>
>
>> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part
>> of netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>
>
> When we in the NetBeans community talk about "plugins", we only mean those
> made available via plugins.netbeans.org. We have various companies
> interested in hosting these, e.g., Microchip (microchip.com) and Dukehoff
> (dukehoff.com), though there could be more. The problem is going to be
> which of the available companies to select for hosting the plugins as well
> as the application at plugins.netbeans.org for accessing those plugins.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
>
>> 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? 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.
>>>
>>
>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform and no IDE.If you want to still be able to distribute an IDE with
>> the same plugins as today, you will need to relicense some of the (L)GPled
>> plugins to apache or rewrite them. The "All" version according to
>> https://netbeans.org/downloads/ comes with Java, HTML5/Javascript, PHP,
>> C/C++ and Groovy. And already for those plugins we have a good mix of GPL,
>> LGPL and CDDL. I will become a problem if there will be an netbeans IDE
>> download that mixes these through.
>>
>> I really only want to hear, that these plugins will be migrated as part
>> of netbeans incubation as well, or what the plans for these are.
>>
>> I am sure there will be a solution for the hosting of the plugins.
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

 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 Müller <
michael.muel...@mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:

> GJ,
>
> regarding this, I request you ta add me to the initial committers.
> --
> Herzliche Grüße, Best regards
> Michael Müller
>
> Twitter: @muellermi
> Blog: blog.mueller-bruehl.de
> Web Development with Java and JSF: leanpub.com/jsf
> Java Lambdas and Parallel Streams: leanpub.com/lambdas
>
>
> Am 23. September 2016 07:50:53 MESZ, schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com>:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Indeed, I now have greater clarity on the initial contributors list
> >thanks
> >to meeting John Ament this afternoon.
> >
> >The initial contributors list is somehow a magic list. Anyone on the
> >list
> >will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
> >be
> >contributors to the Apache NetBeans project. Anyone not on the list
> >will
> >need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
> >that
> >could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
> >in
> >the initial contributors list. Everyone on the initial contributors
> >list is
> >automatically part of the PMC. Anyone added to the contributors list
> >after
> >the proposal has been accepted needs to be voted into the contributors
> >list
> >and can also be invited by the PMC members to join the PMC. At the end
> >of
> >the incubation period, the contributors list will be examined and those
> >who
> >haven't contributed can be approached to ask whether they'd rather not
> >be
> >removed from the list. Anyone on the list when the project leaves
> >incubation gets write access to the project for the rest of their life.
> >
> >I may have misinterpreted something, though I hope the above covers the
> >whole of it. I hope someone will clarify on the points I may have
> >misunderstood.
> >
> >If the above is accurate, we do need to work on the initial
> >contributors
> >list prior to voting on the proposal, quite aside from the infra
> >assessment.
> >
> >The following categories of people need to be approached to invite onto
> >the
> >initial contributors list:
> >
> >1. Everyone who has contributed to NetBeans over the past 6 months or
> >so
> >who are currently not one of the 26 Oracle employees currently on the
> >initial contributors list. These are all Oracle employees, as well as
> >at
> >least one other, who is already on the initial contributors list --
> >Emmanuel Hugonnet from Red Hat who has contributed the WildFly plugin
> >to
> >the NetBeans repository and continues to develop it there. I am not
> >sure
> >how many additional initial contributors this will result in, I
> >estimate
> >potentially around 20.
> >
> >2. Everyone who has created or provided a NetBeans plugin over the past
> >6
> >months or so. Not only will these people need to sign an individual
> >contributors agreement, but also a software grant agreement, to enable
> >their code to be contributed to Apache NetBeans. Not everyone who makes
> >functionality available will be relevant to contributing their code to
> >NetBeans, in some cases they may simply want to continue making plugins
> >available rather than direct source code contributions. Some of the
> >plugin
> >authors are from organizations, e.g., the TypeScript plugin is provided
> >by
> >developers at a company called Everlaw, who may or may not want to make
> >their code directly available to Apache NetBeans. Other plugins provide
> >useful bits of functionality, e.g., several of the plugins by Benno
> >Markiewicz fall into this category, which should simply be part of
> >Apache
> >NetBeans rather than being provided as plugins. Caoyuan Deng is another
> >example, working on the Scala plugin, as well as the developers who
> >have
> >worked on the Python plugin. I estimate that the number of initial
> >contributors from this category number at least about 20.
> >
> >3. Ex-employees from Sun and Oracle who have worked on NetBeans in the
> >past
> >and may want to get involved again. Here I'm thinking of people such as
> >Milos Kleint who worked on, for example, the Apache Maven integration,
> >as
> >well as several others,

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

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
somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans. The
question will be how much of the current NetBeans infrastructure will be
needed under Apache, which is something we can work on concretely during
incubation. Whatever costs have been identified in this phase can only in
the end be lower than the estimate, since we will have less in Apache than
we currently have in NetBeans. E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> 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 form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > 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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

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 contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
participate.
2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
of those who are not our mentors.
3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
if/when they change their mind later.

Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
everyone is putting into this process.

Thanks,

Geertjan



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
wrote:

> 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' of everybody who has
> > contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
> contributed?
> >
> > If so, then:
> > * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
> > * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
> > _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
> > Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
> > and submitted;
> > * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
> > submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
>
> My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
> see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
> incubation process.
>
> Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
> community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
> in an appropriate fashion.
>
> Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
> recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
> for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
> list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
> the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
> future top level project.
>
> - Shane
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.


OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler 
wrote:

> 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 may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
>
> Ross
>
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
>
> 
> From: Ted Dunning 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: 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 form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > 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 the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > 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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote:


> and not all committers are required to commit :-)


That is interesting. Can you explain more about that?

Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial
contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all well known
and established people in the NetBeans community who it would make sense to
include right away, rather than having to vote them in later.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>
>>> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
>>> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> Hi GeertJan,
>>
>> I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so
>> much
>> contradictory advice :-)
>>
>> The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and
>> other
>> mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
>> of the project.
>>
>> The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he
>> had to
>> deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single
>> case.
>> Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off
>> case.
>>
>> The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be
>> made
>> very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
>> Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.
>>
>> But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that
>> (quote):
>>   "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".
>>
>> Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works,
>> but I
>> think it does not, or at least, it will not.
>>
>> For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is
>> no
>> way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list,
>> nor
>> who has been left out erroneously.
>>
>> Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never
>> can be
>> put together proper.
>> Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating
>> all past
>> contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more
>> unclear,
>> even more 'unfair'.
>>
>> And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the
>> sense
>> that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of
>> people
>> seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers
>> decide).
>>
>> Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
>> valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when*
>> they
>> come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.
>>
>> Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
>> before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than
>> voting
>> in active contributors when they actively show up.
>> Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to
>> say.
>>
>> Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
>> commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future
>> committers.
>> IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.
>>
>> The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get
>> the
>> project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
>> So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the
>> initial
>> committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".
>>
>
> And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned
> mentors are there to help them to do this right!
>
>
>> They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking,
>> based
>> on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
>> Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their
>> past
>> contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.
>>
>> And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
>> enough diversity, spread out interest, and wit

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:


> What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be
> solid justification that  a move to ASF will help the community grow.


This is the first I've heard of this.

My one data point is http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-
> Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports&utm_medium=
> rebellabs&utm_campaign=rebellabs (requires sign in). That reports shows a
> decline from 14% in 2012 to 10% today. To be fair that has been steady
> since 2014.


Here's my thoughts on that survey:
https://blogs.oracle.com/geertjan/entry/adding_some_color_to_the

 If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
> inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
> providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.


In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of
one development tool over another.

I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context.

Thanks,

Geertjan





On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> > notes are as follows...
>
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>
> > ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra
>
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
>
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings
>
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:


> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.


Absolutely agree.


> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.


Definitely yes.

Thanks,

Gj


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> > ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> > by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of
> committers...
>
> The way I would deal with the is politely explain how people can
> become committers once incubation starts, and don't go any further.
>
> I am strongly opposed to giving more value to the initial committers
> list than we have done so far, which is just an initial list that's
> going to be expanded and also often reduced during incubation,
> according to how people actually contribute to the project.
>
> A "draft list of committers and future PMC members" if you wish, nothing
> more.
>
> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.
>
> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.
>
> -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 Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:


> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.


I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.

During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.

We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
community.

Gj


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> >> notes are as follows...
> >
> > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> >
> >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> >> the existing ASF infra
> >
> > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
> >
> > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> > on these podlings
>
> I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
> spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
> for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
> add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
> podling's case.
>
> Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
> (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
> an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
> needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
> is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
> okay.
>
> >
> > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> > the board / infra level.
>
> Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
> may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require"
> if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>
> The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
> vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't
> have binding votes there :)
>
> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> > for example
> >
> > -
> > 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: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John Ament said:

So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.


For the record, no one was being excluded. The original approach taken,
following the advice of our mentors, was not to try to be exhaustive in any
way, but instead to try to show diversity. We did that and the mentors were
satisfied. Then various other Apache folks were of the opinion that our
approach was not sufficient and we have been trying to follow those
approaches as well, e.g., we are trying to include and approach as many as
possible who have committed in the past to see whether they want to
continue doing so. To continue to follow the approach taken by our mentors,
we're not trying to be exclusive and we're also not trying to hold up the
vote.

We're just trying to make as many people happy as possible. :-) Plus, the
more details we come up with in relation to our committers and their
intentions and so on, the better for everyone.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> John,
>
> Will try to respond in line.
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> > I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> > proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> > process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> > Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> > from reading this page:
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> > sure why it is...
> >
>
> Maybe review this line
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-
> initial-committers to
> get a better understanding about why this list is critical.
>
>
> >
> > I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> > I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> > people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> > contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> > ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> > Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> > list of committers initially?
> >
>
> Why do you use "hidden" here to describe the repo?  The github mirrors are
> just that - mirrors.  Committers have write access to the ASF repos at
> http://git.apache.org/ .  Those changes are then sync'd back to github.
>
>
> >
> > I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> > of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> > the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> > developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> > community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
>
> It is.  So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.  In both of these cases, there is an
> intent to continue to contribute (or resume contributing), which is part of
> the vendor-neutral mentality the ASF brings (and is ultimately what the
> Netbeans community is after).  Realistically, those who used to contribute
> will know the code base better than those who are just coming in, to be
> able to help guide new contributors on what to look out for.
>
>
> >
> > Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> > > On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> > >>
> > >> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> > >> plattform
> > >>>
> > >>> and no IDE.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> > >> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> > these
> > >> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> > from
> > >> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> it
>

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

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:


> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.


Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
of an organization they work for.

I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
this will not be new for Apache in any way.

Gj



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga"  com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
> For
> > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
> on
> > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
> different
> > under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> > somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.
>
> A couple of reminders:
>
> Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.
>
> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.
>
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 form.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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 the
> > > cliff
> > > > notes are as follows:
> > > >
> > > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > > depending
> > > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
> close we
> > > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are
> working
> > > > with
> > > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > > case.
> > > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web
> site,
> > > CI,
> > > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > > statistics),
> > > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > > time
> > > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > > phase.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers
> offering
> > > > their
> > > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > > from
> > > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine
> costs
> > > > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:


> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.


Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not what
we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
larger than 40.

Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are:
>
> If you leave someone off the list:
> - it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo.
> - that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on
> the list.
> (so don't leave off the person who can quickly fix important security bugs)
>
> If you put someone on the list:
> - They may never contribute what they said they might contribute
> - More administrative work for the ASF secretary.
> - You clean up the deadwood at graduation.
>
> As Apache Flex entered the incubator, we had a 40 person initial committer
> list which was considered quite large at the time.  Only one person
> besides me is still active almost five years later.  About 12 never showed
> up because with the move to Apache their paid job role changed and they
> ran out of time to commit anything.  If I had to do it again, I would
> probably still have the same 40 people.  So what if there was deadwood.
> We cleaned some up at graduation, and then over 4 years after graduation,
> folks faded away and new folks came in.
>
> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 11:59 PM, "John McDonnell"  wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >
> >I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> >proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> >process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> >Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> >from reading this page:
> >https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> >sure why it is...
> >
> >I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> >I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> >people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> >contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> >ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> >Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> >list of committers initially?
> >
> >I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> >of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> >the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> >developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> >community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
> >Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> >> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> >>>
> >>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> >>> plattform
> >>>>
> >>>> and no IDE.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> >>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> >>>these
> >>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> >>>from
> >>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> >>it
> >> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> >>stuff
> >> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> >>
> >>
> >> bye Jochen
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >John
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!



Not anymore -- our mentors have explicitly (and repeatedly) rejected this
approach. The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list. Though we
are -- and have been from even before the proposal was published --
contacting potential new individual contributors and adding them to the
initial contributors list, the purpose of the list is to show diversity of
individual contributors, nothing more and nothing less, and the purpose is
not to try to be as complete as possible. As stated earlier in this thread,
we're simply going to follow our mentors when there is a different in
emphasis and that's what we're going to be doing in this case.

Thanks,

Gj



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
> >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
> >> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
> >>
> >> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
> >> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
> >
> >
> > The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> > through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers
> list
> > extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> > there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not
> on
> > the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.)
>
> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
> very, very explicitly:
>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
> had
> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
> like
> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
> qualify them
> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
> automatically added
> to that list, but rather:
>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
> we already saw
>  somebody did on this very thread)
>
> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
> proof, we need
> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
> missed as part
> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
> once the project
> enters incubation.
>
> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
> proposal (you don't
> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
> comfortable about
> casting my vote.
>
> > However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> > the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as
> complete
> > a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> > list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.
> >
> > My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to
> take
> > the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> > discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible
> and
> > provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
> > least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for
> this.
> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> 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]

>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.


The preliminary NetBeans cost findings cover monetary costs only. Staff
time is not covered. I am not sure what "in-kind" means, though it is not
covered either. I can definitely imagine that indeed there will (and has
already been, e.g., in the drawing up of the preliminary cost findings) be
staff time costs, i.e., from Apache infra side, in moving NetBeans to
Apache.

The preliminary NetBeans cost findings have determined that of the existing
NetBeans services, the ones that carry a monetary burden for Apache are (1)
plugins.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, (2)
statistics.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, and (3) the
MacOS build machines. In fact, the cost findings clearly estimate that only
the MacOS build machines will be a cost factor for Apache.

Gj


Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
> > Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
> > issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
> >
> > Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
> > infra burden will last?  I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
> > 3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
> > is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
> >
>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.
>
> --David
>
> -
> 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]

We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home
of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out to
the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am comfortable
that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have no
intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also not
hosted on Apache.

Hope the above helps,

Geertjan


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> >  wrote:
> >> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
> >> proceed with the vote...
>
> > ...The Office of the President doesn't have any oversight over PMCs, so
> > strictly speaking the IPMC can proceed with this however it likes on
> > whatever timetable it sees fit...
>
> My intention as the NetBeans champion is to be collaborative, so even
> though you guys have no formal power w.r.t voting the podling in I
> think it's worth agreeing on how we proceed.
>
> > ...With my VP Infra/member/IPMC member hats on, I'd prefer seeing the
> > plan for plugins.nb.o in place before you consider this
>
> I see two options then:
>
> a) We don't vote on the NetBeans proposal until the current NetBeans
> team + mentors have worked with infra (on this list I assume) on a
> plan for plugins.netbeans.org once NetBeans moves to the ASF. I
> suspect this can easily take two weeks.
>
> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
>
> Do people agree that these options make sense, and Geertjan which one
> is your and your team's favorite?
>
> -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]

Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to
host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think
we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven.

However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that
in those months these kinds of arrangements can be made. I am not in a
hurry to have the vote on the proposal done. On the other hand, I don't
believe that the finding of a home for plugins.netbeans.org should be a
blocker for that, given that everyone recognizes the importance of
plugins.netbeans.org and the range of organizations available who could be
the host of that service and the fact that we are already exploring this
with some of them.

Just my 2c on this.

Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future
> home
> > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
> > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out
> to
> > the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am
> comfortable
> > that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have
> no
> > intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
> > plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also
> not
> > hosted on Apache.
> >
> > Hope the above helps,
> >
>
> It helps, but ultimately, if the project is going to come to the ASF,
> the Foundation will have to sign off on the terms of any such
> agreement once it comes to the ASF. I know what we have a bit of a
> chicken-egg situation[1] , so I'd urge you to have someone involved
> from the ASF side - your champion looks to be in an ideal place to
> help there.
>
>
> [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+chicken+and+egg+situation
>
>
> --David
>
> -
> 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]

PS: GitHub may be an option too, though right now we're working with two or
three different organizations, to see which would be the best home for
plugins.netbeans.org.

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering
> to host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I
> think we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache
> Maven.
>
> However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that
> in those months these kinds of arrangements can be made. I am not in a
> hurry to have the vote on the proposal done. On the other hand, I don't
> believe that the finding of a home for plugins.netbeans.org should be a
> blocker for that, given that everyone recognizes the importance of
> plugins.netbeans.org and the range of organizations available who could
> be the host of that service and the fact that we are already exploring this
> with some of them.
>
> Just my 2c on this.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, David Nalley  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  wrote:
>> > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future
>> home
>> > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
>> > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out
>> to
>> > the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am
>> comfortable
>> > that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have
>> no
>> > intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
>> > plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also
>> not
>> > hosted on Apache.
>> >
>> > Hope the above helps,
>> >
>>
>> It helps, but ultimately, if the project is going to come to the ASF,
>> the Foundation will have to sign off on the terms of any such
>> agreement once it comes to the ASF. I know what we have a bit of a
>> chicken-egg situation[1] , so I'd urge you to have someone involved
>> from the ASF side - your champion looks to be in an ideal place to
>> help there.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+chicken+and+egg+situation
>>
>>
>> --David
>>
>> -
>> 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 Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:


> won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me
> it does not look that way.


Indeed, this is not an urgent issue from the point of view of NetBeans. I
feel it is an urgent point for some of those in this discussion who want to
be sure there won't be frustration later down the line when it turns out
that Apache will not be hosting the NetBeans plugins. Let me reiterate --
in the same way as Maven plugins are not hosted by Apache, the NetBeans
community is under no assumption that Apache will be hosting NetBeans
plugins.

And we will find a solution, we are working on it actively right now,
though there is no big immediate rush for this.

Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:

> On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> [...]
>
>> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
>> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
>> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
>>
>
> won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me
> it does not look that way.
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Yup, done -- what will you be working on in Apache NetBeans? Based on the
books and documentation you've written, I imagine something along those
lines, while you're also a Java EE expert, so I could see you contributing
in different ways there too, as well as being a JCP expert group member. A
big win for the project, thank you.

Gj

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Michael Müller <
michael.muel...@mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:

> Hi GJ,
>
>
> due to technical problems I missed one day of the discussion. I'm going to
> catch up.
>
> If possible, please add to to the initial commiters.
>
>
> Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
> Michael Müller
> Brühl, Germany
> blog.mueller-bruehl.de <http://blog.mueller-bruehl.de/>
> it-rezension.de <http://it-rezension.de/>
> @muellermi
>
>
> Read my books
> "Web Development with Java and JSF": https://leanpub.com/jsf
> "Java Lambdas und (parallel) Streams" Deutsche Ausgabe:
> https://leanpub.com/lambdas-de
> "Java Lambdas and (parallel) Streams" English edition:
> https://leanpub.com/lambdas
>
> On 09/23/2016 03:30 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>
>> OK. Before the vote, will work on making the initial contributors list as
>> complete as possible.
>>
>> What is the process for doing that? Do I simply make changes directly in
>> the proposal? Do I make the changes public here before adding them to the
>> proposal? Do I work directly with the mentors via e-mails to discuss and
>> then after than make the changes?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Geertjan
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:02 AM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bertrand,
>>>
>>> Responses in line.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacre...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Geertjan,
>>>>
>>>> I won't have time to look at your whole message now, just a few
>>>> clarifications as far as committers/PMC is concerned.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
>>>> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ...Anyone on the list
>>>>> will, once the proposal has been voted on and accepted, automatically
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>
>>>> contributors to the Apache NetBeans project...
>>>>>
>>>> They will be commiters to be precise.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, the way I interpretted Geertjan is that Netbeans contributor ==
>>> ASF
>>> committer.  They don't have the role of PMC/PPMC presently, so we'll see
>>> how that evolves.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone not on the list will
>>>>> need to be voted in by the initial contributors, which is a process
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>
>>>> could be fast, but is still a process and can be avoided by inclusion
>>>>>
>>>> in
>>>
>>>> the initial contributors list...
>>>>>
>>>> It's a simple process, the incubating project could very well have one
>>>>
>>> vote
>>>
>>>> for N people if that makes sense and they are all wanted.
>>>>
>>>> Its simple but hard.  And no, I don't think we want bulk votes.  What if
>>> someone is +1 add Mark S and -1 add Bertrand D?  At least when its come
>>> up
>>> to the IPMC previously, we've recommended against it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Everyone on the initial contributors list is
>>>>> automatically part of the PMC.
>>>>>
>>>> There's no PMC for an incubating project, just a PPMC as per
>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.html
>>>>
>>>> That group has no formal power, only the Incubator PMC can vote on the
>>>> podling's releases or make other decisions which are binding at the
>>>> foundation level.
>>>>
>>>> In practice, you are correct that the PPMC is a PMC in training, but
>>>>
>>> really
>>>
>>>> in a podling being a PPMC member doesn't make a difference IMO.
>>>>
>>>> It does.  PPMC has one important job - vote on adding more people.  We
>>> hope
>>> that they will learn to look at their releases very carefully while under
>>> incubation.
>>>
>>>
>>> ...Anyone on the list when the project leaves
>>&g

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

Thankl of the below has been done.

Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None
will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
another in the NetBeans community.

Gj


On Monday, September 26, 2016, Emmanuel Lécharny 
wrote:

> Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
> >
> > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
> > we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not
> what
> > we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
> > NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
> > Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
> > larger than 40.
>
> The number doesn't matter.
>
> Just ask the existing committers if they want to keep going under an
> Apache flag. Some will say yes, add them to the list. Some will say no,
> don't put them on the list. Some will simply not reply, ask tehm once
> more just in case they forgot to answer (vacations, etc), and act
> accordingly to their answer - or non answer . At the end of the day, you
> have your list.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
> very, very explicitly:
>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
> had
> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
> like
> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
> qualify them
> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
> automatically added
> to that list, but rather:
>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
> we already saw
>  somebody did on this very thread)
>
> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
> proof, we need
> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
> missed as part
> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
> once the project
> enters incubation.
>
> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
> proposal (you don't
> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
> comfortable about
> casting my vote.



For #1, we contacted a number of different communities around NetBeans to
ask for individual contributors: (1) individuals and organizations within
Oracle who are invested in NetBeans, (2) individuals and organizations who
have built applications on top of the NetBeans Platform and NetBeans IDE,
(3) the NetBeans Dream Team, which is a community of NetBeans enthusiasts
around the world who don't work for Oracle yet advocate NetBeans to their
communities as a free and open source development environment, tooling
platform, and application framework, (4) a subset of the individual
contributors of plugins, published at plugins.netbeans.org, (5) the
NetBeans Platform mailing list, which is where potential individual
contributors with NetBeans API knowledge are found.

We have also talked about this a lot and actively last week at JavaOne and
at NetBeans Day. We have tweeted about it. There have been discussions on
internal and external mailing lists.

What can still be done -- track down ex-NetBeans developers who used to
work at Sun or Oracle. Some of these have already been contacted, though
not all of them yet. It's also a question of identifying who these are,
i.e., we don't have a list of these somewhere, we need to recall who worked
with us in the past and contact them on a case by case basis. Something
else that can be done is to contact the NetBeans users mailing list. We
have already done the latter in terms of informing them about the Apache
plans, we have not yet actively asked people to volunteer to be individual
contributors from the NetBeans users mailing list -- I propose we wait to
do that until a bit later because we could end up with literally 100's of
individual contributors if we do that and it might be advisable to keep te
list down to something semi manageable, which is what we have now.

For everyone in the NetBeans community, all this is quite new, the Apache
process, etc. We'll take it step by step. Once we're in incubation, and
we've set up the Wiki, and the mailing lists, we can take the next steps of
appealing more broadly for individual contributors, who we will then vote
in. I'm concerned that the longer we make the initial contributors list and
the more we add to it, the more insulted someone might feel for having been
omitted. :-)

All the above info can be added to the proposal, if this is desirable,
though the long list of individual contributors already there should be
evidence enough in itself that we're working hard on being inclusive and
getting broad involvement in this project.

Thanks,

Gj




On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:49 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Thankl of the below has been done.
>
> Some more are being added. However at this point the more we add the more
> insulting to those we omit. We've done our best. The list is strong. None
> will commit nothing, all have a history of years being active in one way or
> another in the NetBeans community.
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Monday, September 26, 2016, Emmanuel Lécharny 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 26/09/16 à 07:32, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>> >
>> > Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would
>> mean
>> > we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not
>> what
>> > we want -- instead

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Geertjan Wielenga]

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. From the NetBeans side of things, we're a large community and lots
of us are following all this and maybe someone can point us Apache newbies
to the precise context in which we're currently finding ourselves in right
now.

Gj

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> +1
> Ate
>
>
>
> On 2016-09-27 14:23, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
 On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament 

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before
 starting a
  vote?..

>>>
>>> I'm +1 for starting the vote.
>>>
>>> -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
>>
>>
>
> -
> 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]

I'm very OK with starting the vote. I'd recommend leaving this to the
Apache community as much as possible, everyone from NetBeans is extremely
positive about all this so let's be reticent in this specific process, and
enable the Apache community to work through all this. That would be my
advise at this point.

Gj

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  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
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> 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
>
>

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  wrote:

> On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>  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: 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: 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
> > 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: 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  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
>>> > 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: [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&rev1=55&rev2=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: 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: [VOTE] Accept NetBeans into the Apache Incubator

[Geertjan Wielenga]

roject 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 contributors from NetBeans Platform custome

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: 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: 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 
> 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: [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: [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 last release:
> >>
> >> July 17, 2017
> >>
> >> When were the last commit

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 some contributions now from independent developers.
>  Active discussions on mailing lists with potential users and

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  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 
> > 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:
> > &

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: [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
>
>

[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

[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 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

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

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]

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  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/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]

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]

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]

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  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  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]

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: 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]

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:
>
> - 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 
>> 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]

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: 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
 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  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]

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

Gj

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  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

[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: [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  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 
>>  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/66daa753d25a482efecc5b86fdc00dc31250ca1448b533bfba82a

[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 
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 NetBeans PPMC

-
To unsubscribe,

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
>
>

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
>
>

[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: [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 
> 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
>>
>>

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 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
>>  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]

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 
wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  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]

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
>>  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]

+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 NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the NetBeans Platform
>  (i.e., the underlying application fr

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
>
>