You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> on 2017/11/30 19:41:50 UTC
Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Hi all,
Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost down
to 0:
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so long
as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to be
done?
We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE --
though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and during
that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may want
to skip over for the Beta).
Thanks,
Gj
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by John McDonnell <mc...@gmail.com>.
Cool, that makes sense, I was just curious about its progress.
John
On 30 November 2017 at 20:02, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Fair question.
>
> On the other hand, we're clearly not in a position yet to do anything with
> those files, even if they were to come in today -- we clearly have more
> than enough work to do just on the code from the 1st donation.
>
> That being said, we've restructured the subsequent donations such that we
> can focus specifically on the parts we care most about right now -- Java
> EE, JavaScript/HTML, PHP, and Groovy:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition
>
> At the end of the above link, notice 5e, which is the focus of the 2nd
> donation -- we've moved C++-related clusters to the third code donation so
> that we can get especially the Java EE and JavaScript/HTML features over to
> Apache as quickly as possible. The reason for the delays is simply a
> question of resourcing and conflicting work assignments coming in the paths
> of those working on this. However, again, I must say I'm happy we don't
> have the 2nd code donation yet right now -- we'd be swamped, we'd have a
> significant number of additional files we'd need to wade through while
> right now we have plenty of files to wade through as it is.
>
> Gj
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:56 PM, John McDonnell <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Any update on the progress of the 2nd code donation?
> >
> > Is Oracle still going through those files - Any idea when that will be
> > ready?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On 30 November 2017 at 19:41, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost
> > down
> > > to 0:
> > >
> > > https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> > > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/
> rat-report.txt
> > >
> > > And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > > Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
> > >
> > > Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so
> > long
> > > as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to
> be
> > > done?
> > >
> > > We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE
> --
> > > though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and
> during
> > > that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may
> > want
> > > to skip over for the Beta).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> >
>
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Fair question.
On the other hand, we're clearly not in a position yet to do anything with
those files, even if they were to come in today -- we clearly have more
than enough work to do just on the code from the 1st donation.
That being said, we've restructured the subsequent donations such that we
can focus specifically on the parts we care most about right now -- Java
EE, JavaScript/HTML, PHP, and Groovy:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+Transition
At the end of the above link, notice 5e, which is the focus of the 2nd
donation -- we've moved C++-related clusters to the third code donation so
that we can get especially the Java EE and JavaScript/HTML features over to
Apache as quickly as possible. The reason for the delays is simply a
question of resourcing and conflicting work assignments coming in the paths
of those working on this. However, again, I must say I'm happy we don't
have the 2nd code donation yet right now -- we'd be swamped, we'd have a
significant number of additional files we'd need to wade through while
right now we have plenty of files to wade through as it is.
Gj
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:56 PM, John McDonnell <mc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Any update on the progress of the 2nd code donation?
>
> Is Oracle still going through those files - Any idea when that will be
> ready?
>
> John
>
> On 30 November 2017 at 19:41, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost
> down
> > to 0:
> >
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
> >
> > And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
> >
> > Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so
> long
> > as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to be
> > done?
> >
> > We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE --
> > though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and during
> > that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may
> want
> > to skip over for the Beta).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
>
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by John McDonnell <mc...@gmail.com>.
Any update on the progress of the 2nd code donation?
Is Oracle still going through those files - Any idea when that will be
ready?
John
On 30 November 2017 at 19:41, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost down
> to 0:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
>
> Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so long
> as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to be
> done?
>
> We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE --
> though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and during
> that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may want
> to skip over for the Beta).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>
Re: Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Excellent.
Gj
On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 at 19:23, Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> hearing no objections, I merged PR-251 and closed PR-289.
>
> Thank you for looking into this and special thanks to Lars for taking
> care.
>
> Greetings
>
> Matthias
>
>
> Am Sonntag, den 03.12.2017, 20:50 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > we need to get this out of the way. To summarize:
> >
> > For an unknown reason oracle decided to replace the browser icons in
> > the css.editor and web. browser.api with a generic icon. Lars took
> > the
> > initiative and created a PR, that reinstates the icons:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/251
> >
> > In addition a second PR was created, that held replacement icons:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289
> >
> >
> > There are two separate concerns:
> >
> > Copyright for the artwork and trademarks.
> >
> > For my evaluation please see:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289#issuecomment-34
> > 6683201
> >
> >
> > So I'm plan to:
> >
> > - merge PR-251
> > - close PR-289
> >
> > by Friday this week, unless someone raises founded reasons against
> > that
> > plan. While founded reasons will be good enough to stop me, he/she
> > should also be prepared to come up with an alternative plan.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Matthias
> >
> >
> > Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 18:01 +0100 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> > > PR 251 means readding the existing Icons, instead of the NB Icon
> > > placeholder. PR 289 is the one w/o having Icons.
> > > I prefer 251 too.
> > >
> > > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
> > >
> > > Von: Neil C Smith
> > > Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:02
> > > An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > > Betreff: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> > > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and
> > > > PR289 and
> > > > when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil
> > > > and
> > > > Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
> > > >
> > >
> > > PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
> > >
> > > There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and
> > > copyright.
> > >
> > > Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources
> > > Matthias
> > > linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is
> > > how
> > > they
> > > were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think)
> > > that we
> > > clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
> > >
> > > Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked
> > > about
> > > provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation,
> > > but
> > > I
> > > assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > > Neil
>
Re: Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>.
Hi all,
hearing no objections, I merged PR-251 and closed PR-289.
Thank you for looking into this and special thanks to Lars for taking
care.
Greetings
Matthias
Am Sonntag, den 03.12.2017, 20:50 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing:
> Hey all,
>
> we need to get this out of the way. To summarize:
>
> For an unknown reason oracle decided to replace the browser icons in
> the css.editor and web. browser.api with a generic icon. Lars took
> the
> initiative and created a PR, that reinstates the icons:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/251
>
> In addition a second PR was created, that held replacement icons:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289
>
>
> There are two separate concerns:
>
> Copyright for the artwork and trademarks.
>
> For my evaluation please see:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289#issuecomment-34
> 6683201
>
>
> So I'm plan to:
>
> - merge PR-251
> - close PR-289
>
> by Friday this week, unless someone raises founded reasons against
> that
> plan. While founded reasons will be good enough to stop me, he/she
> should also be prepared to come up with an alternative plan.
>
> Greetings
>
> Matthias
>
>
> Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 18:01 +0100 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> > PR 251 means readding the existing Icons, instead of the NB Icon
> > placeholder. PR 289 is the one w/o having Icons.
> > I prefer 251 too.
> >
> > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
> >
> > Von: Neil C Smith
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:02
> > An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and
> > > PR289 and
> > > when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil
> > > and
> > > Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
> > >
> >
> > PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
> >
> > There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and
> > copyright.
> >
> > Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources
> > Matthias
> > linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is
> > how
> > they
> > were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think)
> > that we
> > clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
> >
> > Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked
> > about
> > provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation,
> > but
> > I
> > assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Neil
Re: Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>.
I've taken up Neil's suggestion and opened LEGAL-353 ("Clarify fair use of
trademarked logos"). The older issue, LEGAL-343, was poorly worded and is
now closed. Feel free to edit LEGAL-353 if you feel the wording can be
better.
I agree with Matthias' suggestion to move forward wrt browser icons. Even
though IANAL, I think the use of browser logos should be uncontroversial.
Related:
There are a few other trademarked logos that used to be in NetBeans, but
that have also been replaced by a dummy. These are
- The official Java logo. (in Start page, we don't need it and there are
pretty strict guidelines for its usage, so we do not re-instate)
- Oracle Corp logo (also in Start page, we don't need it and the NetBeans
no longer has any direct affiliation with Oracle, so we do not re-instate)
I'll open PR on Start Page (welcome module) so that it doesn't look stupid.
Really minor.
But all in all I think it is pretty easy to stay clear of use of
trademarked logos other than for browsers.
/Lars
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > There seems to be agreement around #251.
> >
>
> +1 with ...
>
> Considering we were asked by mentors back in April to clarify with legal
> fair-use of third-party trademark, knowing (or having if there isn't one)
> Apache policy on this would be good. However, the existing ticket seems to
> be unanswered?
>
> Can I suggest we merge this as suggested, then open a ticket on legal with
> the links Matthias shared - ie. turn the question from can we do this to,
> we've done this please get back to us if we've done something wrong?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
> --
> Neil C Smith
> Artist & Technologist
> www.neilcsmith.net
>
> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
>
Re: Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:50 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> There seems to be agreement around #251.
>
+1 with ...
Considering we were asked by mentors back in April to clarify with legal
fair-use of third-party trademark, knowing (or having if there isn't one)
Apache policy on this would be good. However, the existing ticket seems to
be unanswered?
Can I suggest we merge this as suggested, then open a ticket on legal with
the links Matthias shared - ie. turn the question from can we do this to,
we've done this please get back to us if we've done something wrong?
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
There seems to be agreement around #251.
Gj
On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> we need to get this out of the way. To summarize:
>
> For an unknown reason oracle decided to replace the browser icons in
> the css.editor and web. browser.api with a generic icon. Lars took the
> initiative and created a PR, that reinstates the icons:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/251
>
> In addition a second PR was created, that held replacement icons:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289
>
>
> There are two separate concerns:
>
> Copyright for the artwork and trademarks.
>
> For my evaluation please see:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289#
> issuecomment-346683201
>
>
> So I'm plan to:
>
> - merge PR-251
> - close PR-289
>
> by Friday this week, unless someone raises founded reasons against that
> plan. While founded reasons will be good enough to stop me, he/she
> should also be prepared to come up with an alternative plan.
>
> Greetings
>
> Matthias
>
>
> Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 18:01 +0100 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> > PR 251 means readding the existing Icons, instead of the NB Icon
> > placeholder. PR 289 is the one w/o having Icons.
> > I prefer 251 too.
> >
> > Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
> >
> > Von: Neil C Smith
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:02
> > An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> > Betreff: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and
> > > PR289 and
> > > when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil
> > > and
> > > Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
> > >
> >
> > PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
> >
> > There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and
> > copyright.
> >
> > Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources
> > Matthias
> > linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is how
> > they
> > were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think)
> > that we
> > clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
> >
> > Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked
> > about
> > provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation, but
> > I
> > assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Neil
>
Readd Browser Icons (PR-251) (was: Re: AW: Status of Apache
NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta)
Posted by Matthias Bläsing <mb...@doppel-helix.eu>.
Hey all,
we need to get this out of the way. To summarize:
For an unknown reason oracle decided to replace the browser icons in
the css.editor and web. browser.api with a generic icon. Lars took the
initiative and created a PR, that reinstates the icons:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/251
In addition a second PR was created, that held replacement icons:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289
There are two separate concerns:
Copyright for the artwork and trademarks.
For my evaluation please see:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289#issuecomment-346683201
So I'm plan to:
- merge PR-251
- close PR-289
by Friday this week, unless someone raises founded reasons against that
plan. While founded reasons will be good enough to stop me, he/she
should also be prepared to come up with an alternative plan.
Greetings
Matthias
Am Samstag, den 02.12.2017, 18:01 +0100 schrieb Christian Lenz:
> PR 251 means readding the existing Icons, instead of the NB Icon
> placeholder. PR 289 is the one w/o having Icons.
> I prefer 251 too.
>
> Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
>
> Von: Neil C Smith
> Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:02
> An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and
> > PR289 and
> > when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil
> > and
> > Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
> >
>
> PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
>
> There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and
> copyright.
>
> Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources
> Matthias
> linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is how
> they
> were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think)
> that we
> clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
>
> Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked
> about
> provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation, but
> I
> assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
AW: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Christian Lenz <ch...@gmx.net>.
PR 251 means readding the existing Icons, instead of the NB Icon placeholder. PR 289 is the one w/o having Icons.
I prefer 251 too.
Gesendet von Mail für Windows 10
Von: Neil C Smith
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 14:02
An: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and PR289 and
> when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil and
> Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
>
PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and copyright.
Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources Matthias
linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is how they
were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think) that we
clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked about
provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation, but I
assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:00 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and PR289 and
> when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil and
> Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
>
PR251 is the original icons, not the placeholders, I believe.
There are two concerns with the original artwork - trademarks and copyright.
Trademarks should be fine under fair-use according to the sources Matthias
linked to (also my previous understanding), and I presume this is how they
were used before?! Our mentors did request earlier (April I think) that we
clarify trademark fair-use under Apache with legal.
Copyright-wise, this affects the actual artwork, and why I asked about
provenance. Ideally they'd have been kept in/with the donation, but I
assume we can appropriate them under CDDL?
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
To be honest, I don't understand the difference between PR251 and PR289 and
when I read the comments at the end of PR289, it seems like Neil and
Matthias are both saying we should merge PR251, not PR289.
Gj
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Re icons: fully agree that we should move on now. This is why PR289 exist.
> You can merge now, IMO.
> PR251 is on the other hand likely to be held up by lengthy discussions. One
> doesn't exclude the other.
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The way I've been primarily looking at the module review process is by
> > means of 'ant rat' (i.e., this identifies problematic/missing license
> > headers) + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' (this identifies, among
> other
> > things, GPL libraries). So, those are the two reports I've been looking
> > at/generating to see the status of our IP clearance -- we do need to go
> > back and update the module review process page as well, which may be out
> of
> > sync, and though some may argue that it's superfluous when you add in
> those
> > two Ant commands, it's handy to have an overview like that. So, in short,
> > the module review process is in good shape, based on the fact that we
> know
> > the 'ant rat' + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' are in good shape.
> >
> > Re the clearer impact of the removed files -- I think we should do what
> we
> > can but at some point it will be a question of the problems needing to be
> > identified in practise and the NetCAT process will be perfect for that.
> > I.e., I don't think we should hold up the Beta release for this, since
> yes
> > even though fixing things now might be easier than testers catching them,
> > testers catching them will show which ones are most important to fix.
> Some
> > might not need fixing.
> >
> > Also, the question of icons, there are two PRs about this, not sure which
> > one takes precedence (https://github.com/apache/
> > incubator-netbeans/pull/251
> > or https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289) is not
> > necessarily something applicable to the Beta release. I am also concerned
> > that in the icons discussion we're letting the perfect be the enemy of
> the
> > good. A simple imperfect solution that we can merge right now today is in
> > my opinion far preferable to one that will require another 6 months of
> > investigation.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Lars Bruun-Hansen <
> lbruunhansen@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, we are progressing. Every hour some progress can be seen. Check!
> > >
> > > > [...] what is there left to be done?
> > >
> > > (1) are we done with the module review process ?
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > > List+of+Modules+to+Review
> > >
> > > (2) IMO, we still need a clearer view of the impact of the removed
> files.
> > > See
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > > Donation+changes+to+be+reviewed
> > > for how to participate. Removed files (especially DTDs) often cause
> > subtle
> > > errors or unexpected changes in functionality. Until we have done at
> > least
> > > some rudimentary review of the impact (or re-instated the missing
> file),
> > we
> > > cannot truthfully say what the known issues are. I don't know if this
> is
> > > required for a beta release, but it just feels easier to review it from
> > > this side than to have testers catch in NetCAT phase.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is
> almost
> > > down
> > > > to 0:
> > > >
> > > > https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> > > > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/
> > rat-report.txt
> > > >
> > > > And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
> > > >
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > > > Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
> > > >
> > > > Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so
> > > long
> > > > as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left
> to
> > be
> > > > done?
> > > >
> > > > We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans
> IDE
> > --
> > > > though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and
> > during
> > > > that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may
> > > want
> > > > to skip over for the Beta).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Gj
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>.
Re icons: fully agree that we should move on now. This is why PR289 exist.
You can merge now, IMO.
PR251 is on the other hand likely to be held up by lengthy discussions. One
doesn't exclude the other.
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The way I've been primarily looking at the module review process is by
> means of 'ant rat' (i.e., this identifies problematic/missing license
> headers) + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' (this identifies, among other
> things, GPL libraries). So, those are the two reports I've been looking
> at/generating to see the status of our IP clearance -- we do need to go
> back and update the module review process page as well, which may be out of
> sync, and though some may argue that it's superfluous when you add in those
> two Ant commands, it's handy to have an overview like that. So, in short,
> the module review process is in good shape, based on the fact that we know
> the 'ant rat' + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' are in good shape.
>
> Re the clearer impact of the removed files -- I think we should do what we
> can but at some point it will be a question of the problems needing to be
> identified in practise and the NetCAT process will be perfect for that.
> I.e., I don't think we should hold up the Beta release for this, since yes
> even though fixing things now might be easier than testers catching them,
> testers catching them will show which ones are most important to fix. Some
> might not need fixing.
>
> Also, the question of icons, there are two PRs about this, not sure which
> one takes precedence (https://github.com/apache/
> incubator-netbeans/pull/251
> or https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289) is not
> necessarily something applicable to the Beta release. I am also concerned
> that in the icons discussion we're letting the perfect be the enemy of the
> good. A simple imperfect solution that we can merge right now today is in
> my opinion far preferable to one that will require another 6 months of
> investigation.
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, we are progressing. Every hour some progress can be seen. Check!
> >
> > > [...] what is there left to be done?
> >
> > (1) are we done with the module review process ?
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > List+of+Modules+to+Review
> >
> > (2) IMO, we still need a clearer view of the impact of the removed files.
> > See
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > Donation+changes+to+be+reviewed
> > for how to participate. Removed files (especially DTDs) often cause
> subtle
> > errors or unexpected changes in functionality. Until we have done at
> least
> > some rudimentary review of the impact (or re-instated the missing file),
> we
> > cannot truthfully say what the known issues are. I don't know if this is
> > required for a beta release, but it just feels easier to review it from
> > this side than to have testers catch in NetCAT phase.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost
> > down
> > > to 0:
> > >
> > > https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> > > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/
> rat-report.txt
> > >
> > > And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
> > >
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > > Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
> > >
> > > Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so
> > long
> > > as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to
> be
> > > done?
> > >
> > > We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE
> --
> > > though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and
> during
> > > that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may
> > want
> > > to skip over for the Beta).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> >
>
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
The way I've been primarily looking at the module review process is by
means of 'ant rat' (i.e., this identifies problematic/missing license
headers) + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' (this identifies, among other
things, GPL libraries). So, those are the two reports I've been looking
at/generating to see the status of our IP clearance -- we do need to go
back and update the module review process page as well, which may be out of
sync, and though some may argue that it's superfluous when you add in those
two Ant commands, it's handy to have an overview like that. So, in short,
the module review process is in good shape, based on the fact that we know
the 'ant rat' + 'ant ant verify-libs-and-licenses' are in good shape.
Re the clearer impact of the removed files -- I think we should do what we
can but at some point it will be a question of the problems needing to be
identified in practise and the NetCAT process will be perfect for that.
I.e., I don't think we should hold up the Beta release for this, since yes
even though fixing things now might be easier than testers catching them,
testers catching them will show which ones are most important to fix. Some
might not need fixing.
Also, the question of icons, there are two PRs about this, not sure which
one takes precedence (https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/251
or https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/289) is not
necessarily something applicable to the Beta release. I am also concerned
that in the icons discussion we're letting the perfect be the enemy of the
good. A simple imperfect solution that we can merge right now today is in
my opinion far preferable to one that will require another 6 months of
investigation.
Gj
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:47 AM, Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, we are progressing. Every hour some progress can be seen. Check!
>
> > [...] what is there left to be done?
>
> (1) are we done with the module review process ?
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> List+of+Modules+to+Review
>
> (2) IMO, we still need a clearer view of the impact of the removed files.
> See
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Donation+changes+to+be+reviewed
> for how to participate. Removed files (especially DTDs) often cause subtle
> errors or unexpected changes in functionality. Until we have done at least
> some rudimentary review of the impact (or re-instated the missing file), we
> cannot truthfully say what the known issues are. I don't know if this is
> required for a beta release, but it just feels easier to review it from
> this side than to have testers catch in NetCAT phase.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost
> down
> > to 0:
> >
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> > lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
> >
> > And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
> >
> > Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so
> long
> > as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to be
> > done?
> >
> > We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE --
> > though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and during
> > that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may
> want
> > to skip over for the Beta).
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gj
> >
>
Re: Status of Apache NetBeans (incubating) 9.0 Beta
Posted by Lars Bruun-Hansen <lb...@gmail.com>.
Yes, we are progressing. Every hour some progress can be seen. Check!
> [...] what is there left to be done?
(1) are we done with the module review process ?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/List+of+Modules+to+Review
(2) IMO, we still need a clearer view of the impact of the removed files.
See
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Donation+changes+to+be+reviewed
for how to participate. Removed files (especially DTDs) often cause subtle
errors or unexpected changes in functionality. Until we have done at least
some rudimentary review of the impact (or re-instated the missing file), we
cannot truthfully say what the known issues are. I don't know if this is
required for a beta release, but it just feels easier to review it from
this side than to have testers catch in NetCAT phase.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Status for 9.0 Beta is looking really good -- the Rat report is almost down
> to 0:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
> lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/rat-java-temp/nbbuild/build/rat-report.txt
>
> And pretty much all the issues are resolved or closed in some way:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta
>
> Bearing in mind that incubator releases do not need to be perfect, so long
> as their imperfections are known and documented, what is there left to be
> done?
>
> We're close to having an incubation release of a Java 9.0 NetBeans IDE --
> though Beta, because after that we'll have the NetCAT program (and during
> that process we could also fix a few other things as well that we may want
> to skip over for the Beta).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gj
>