You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> on 2019/10/03 10:43:11 UTC
[DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Hi All,
While waiting for some testing with beta2 ahead of announcing it, I
wanted to follow up on the discussion [1] about approving convenience
binaries. There was some talk of having a voting or lazy consensus
thread on them, or linking them to the release vote.
To date, we have only voted on source releases - binaries may have
been ready at vote time, but in the voting template we've been
explicitly telling everyone they're not relevant and not linking them
in!
So, what to do for NB 11.2?
We could add the binaries into the release vote. That would require
changing our voting template, and I think considering what steps might
need doing in addition to the required steps for a binding release
vote from [2]
We could have concurrent voting or consensus threads on the binary
artefacts, perhaps separate for installers, Maven, etc. If there is a
problem with any one binary that doesn't require source changes to fix
it, it then need not delay the release vote itself passing. Some
binaries may come later.
My preference is probably the second option (if we have to do either).
Incidentally, in the original thread my preference was not to do
either of these things so formally! At the same time, I did think
some process so that another PMC member had given the once-over on any
binary to check requirements had been met was useful. Neither of
those options actually do that. Maybe there's merit to a consensus
thread with associated wiki page table of binaries that PMC members
can tick off when they've checked any one of them? We can know at a
glance what has and hasn't been checked over.
[1] - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0d11a5d311bb4bdd73ee8488e0383ea2b04166c820be183b54f1182@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
[2] - http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#approving-a-release
Best wishes,
Neil
Volunteer Release Manager for Apache Netbeans 11.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 12:58, Eric Barboni <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
> What if,
> In Release 11.2, Linux Installer is not ok. And fix implies NetBeans sources changes.
>
> We would vote again on source to make release 11.2fix1 with installer and still have a 11.2 with missing one missing convenience?
Not a "what if" I particularly like! :-) But yes, if picked up in
time we decide whether to pull the vote or make a later fix for vote
before or after public release. That's no different or worse than
what we've done before, potentially somewhat better given they weren't
voted on before!
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
RE: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Eric Barboni <sk...@apache.org>.
What if,
In Release 11.2, Linux Installer is not ok. And fix implies NetBeans sources changes.
We would vote again on source to make release 11.2fix1 with installer and still have a 11.2 with missing one missing convenience?
Regards
Eric
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>
Envoyé : mercredi 16 octobre 2019 13:29
À : dev@netbeans.apache.org
Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Makes sense, thanks.
Gj
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 13:26, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 12:13, Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > But can’t they all be handled in the same vote thread? (Sorry this
> > has probably been explained multiple times, but maybe just in this
> > part of
> the
> > thread too it would help.)
>
> Ideally, no. I think we need to require that people who are voting
> have tested everything that is there to be voted on. Otherwise we
> have no way of knowing if anyone has actually checked eg. the Linux
> installer.
>
> I don't think it's feasible to expect that everyone who votes can test
> every binary. We've not voted on binaries before, and I was not the
> one pushing for it. But if we're going to do it, I want to at least
> make sure everything does get checked against the ASF requirements by
> other PMC members.
>
> It also allows to run some votes later if required. We don't have to
> hold up voting on the initial release build for things that require
> additional steps.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>.
Makes sense, thanks.
Gj
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 13:26, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 12:13, Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > But can’t they all be handled in the same vote thread? (Sorry this has
> > probably been explained multiple times, but maybe just in this part of
> the
> > thread too it would help.)
>
> Ideally, no. I think we need to require that people who are voting
> have tested everything that is there to be voted on. Otherwise we
> have no way of knowing if anyone has actually checked eg. the Linux
> installer.
>
> I don't think it's feasible to expect that everyone who votes can test
> every binary. We've not voted on binaries before, and I was not the
> one pushing for it. But if we're going to do it, I want to at least
> make sure everything does get checked against the ASF requirements by
> other PMC members.
>
> It also allows to run some votes later if required. We don't have to
> hold up voting on the initial release build for things that require
> additional steps.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 12:13, Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> But can’t they all be handled in the same vote thread? (Sorry this has
> probably been explained multiple times, but maybe just in this part of the
> thread too it would help.)
Ideally, no. I think we need to require that people who are voting
have tested everything that is there to be voted on. Otherwise we
have no way of knowing if anyone has actually checked eg. the Linux
installer.
I don't think it's feasible to expect that everyone who votes can test
every binary. We've not voted on binaries before, and I was not the
one pushing for it. But if we're going to do it, I want to at least
make sure everything does get checked against the ASF requirements by
other PMC members.
It also allows to run some votes later if required. We don't have to
hold up voting on the initial release build for things that require
additional steps.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@apache.org>.
But can’t they all be handled in the same vote thread? (Sorry this has
probably been explained multiple times, but maybe just in this part of the
thread too it would help.)
Gj
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 13:09, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:49, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I'm still not totally sold on doing that instead of multiple vote
> > threads, but we do need to be clearer on all the stuff we release, and
> > what we expect everyone to actually check before voting. With more
> > thought, I'm veering towards Laszlo's suggestion of adding binary zip
> > and nbms into release vote, and separate votes on the other artefacts.
> > This also reflects different OS concerns, additional build processes,
> > and different people signing.
>
> OK, as the day gets closer for the 11.2 vote (although should have
> been a few days ago! :-) ) ..
>
> My plan, unless anyone has major objections, is to run this roughly as
> Laszlo suggested and we see how that goes.
>
> I will add the zip and nbm binaries into the release vote thread,
> along with specifics of what else needs to be done with them in order
> to vote. That means anyone who votes must now do checks on sources
> and those binaries.
>
> Then we will have separate votes on -
>
> * Maven artefacts (Eric?)
> * Windows installer (Reema?)
> * macOS installer (Reema?)
> * Linux installer (Reema?)
> * anything else ???
>
> That keeps OS concerns and different signer concerns separate, as well
> as acknowledging that zip and nbms are built in the same build process
> as the source bundle.
>
> Obviously the other convenience binary threads are also dependent on
> the main release vote passing. The additional threads can run
> concurrently or slightly later as required.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
> Volunteer Release Manager for Apache Netbeans 11.2
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:49, Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm still not totally sold on doing that instead of multiple vote
> threads, but we do need to be clearer on all the stuff we release, and
> what we expect everyone to actually check before voting. With more
> thought, I'm veering towards Laszlo's suggestion of adding binary zip
> and nbms into release vote, and separate votes on the other artefacts.
> This also reflects different OS concerns, additional build processes,
> and different people signing.
OK, as the day gets closer for the 11.2 vote (although should have
been a few days ago! :-) ) ..
My plan, unless anyone has major objections, is to run this roughly as
Laszlo suggested and we see how that goes.
I will add the zip and nbm binaries into the release vote thread,
along with specifics of what else needs to be done with them in order
to vote. That means anyone who votes must now do checks on sources
and those binaries.
Then we will have separate votes on -
* Maven artefacts (Eric?)
* Windows installer (Reema?)
* macOS installer (Reema?)
* Linux installer (Reema?)
* anything else ???
That keeps OS concerns and different signer concerns separate, as well
as acknowledging that zip and nbms are built in the same build process
as the source bundle.
Obviously the other convenience binary threads are also dependent on
the main release vote passing. The additional threads can run
concurrently or slightly later as required.
Best wishes,
Neil
Volunteer Release Manager for Apache Netbeans 11.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 14:16, Eric Barboni <sk...@apache.org> wrote:
> I like the template, I would prefer a complicated vote that make people aware of all the stuff we release as PMC.
I'm still not totally sold on doing that instead of multiple vote
threads, but we do need to be clearer on all the stuff we release, and
what we expect everyone to actually check before voting. With more
thought, I'm veering towards Laszlo's suggestion of adding binary zip
and nbms into release vote, and separate votes on the other artefacts.
This also reflects different OS concerns, additional build processes,
and different people signing.
> So maybe if we have only one PMC who check os installer is still releasable by the trust of others.
Well, I'd been pushing for something closer to that when this was
first discussed! ;-)
However, if we are going to have votes on binaries, then I think we
need to go with 72hrs and min 3 +1 for every artefact just like any
other ASF vote.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
RE: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Eric Barboni <sk...@apache.org>.
I like the template, I would prefer a complicated vote that make people aware of all the stuff we release as PMC.
Maybe it's possible to make more a checklist for the binaries part assuming +1 is good for source and release you check.
Only if -1 and binaries checked we may need to cancel. (Or not)
+1 (check maven + windows installer) giving my +1 indirectly to os installer and linux installer by trusting other PMC.
So maybe if we have only one PMC who check os installer is still releasable by the trust of others.
Regards
Eric
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>
Envoyé : jeudi 3 octobre 2019 19:08
À : dev <de...@netbeans.apache.org>
Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 17:00, Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case if we would like to vote on binaries, IMHO, I'd go with a
> mixed option. We could keep the source and the binary zip distribution
> on a single thread as they have "instant visibility". Then vote on the
> installers (probably by platform) and other binaries on separate threads.
That's a good point about per-platform installer votes. I'd been having similar thoughts, at least the whole thing that bugs me about changing what we've been doing is the added complexity while still not actually ensuring that *someone* has looked at eg. the installer for any particular platform. Assuming we don't require every voter on a release to check every binary on every platform! :-)
We've never had the binary zip as part of the vote thread before, although I know some people have checked them in the vote threads I've tallied. Still, Daniel's comment "If it's not source code, you cannot reliably vote on anything." makes me want to keep the votes (if not necessarily the threads) separate.
One option might be to run multiple votes in the one thread with the following template (ie. copy and paste in the reply)? Or is this too damn complicated?
eg.
=======================
Apache NetBeans source release
Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.
Release vote (+1 / -1) :
Apache NetBeans convenience binaries
Further to voting on the release, you may vote on the associated convenience binaries. As well as checking any artifact functions correctly, you should check that it has been correctly signed by a PMC member, and that the source voted on above is sufficient to build the relevant binary.
Vote (+1/-1) on each, or leave blank if unchecked.
Binary zip distribution and NBMs :
Maven artifacts :
Windows installer :
macOS installer :
Linux installer :
=========================
So, one complicated vote thread or six simpler ones maybe?
We should consider using wording similar to the above, which is mostly from the release guidelines, to clarify what needs doing anyway.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 17:00, Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In case if we would like to vote on binaries, IMHO, I'd go with a mixed
> option. We could keep the source and the binary zip distribution on a
> single thread as they have "instant visibility". Then vote on the
> installers (probably by platform) and other binaries on separate threads.
That's a good point about per-platform installer votes. I'd been
having similar thoughts, at least the whole thing that bugs me about
changing what we've been doing is the added complexity while still not
actually ensuring that *someone* has looked at eg. the installer for
any particular platform. Assuming we don't require every voter on a
release to check every binary on every platform! :-)
We've never had the binary zip as part of the vote thread before,
although I know some people have checked them in the vote threads I've
tallied. Still, Daniel's comment "If it's not source code, you cannot
reliably vote on anything." makes me want to keep the votes (if not
necessarily the threads) separate.
One option might be to run multiple votes in the one thread with the
following template (ie. copy and paste in the reply)? Or is this too
damn complicated?
eg.
=======================
Apache NetBeans source release
Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed
source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting
executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the
package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.
Release vote (+1 / -1) :
Apache NetBeans convenience binaries
Further to voting on the release, you may vote on the associated
convenience binaries. As well as checking any artifact functions
correctly, you should check that it has been correctly signed by a PMC
member, and that the source voted on above is sufficient to build the
relevant binary.
Vote (+1/-1) on each, or leave blank if unchecked.
Binary zip distribution and NBMs :
Maven artifacts :
Windows installer :
macOS installer :
Linux installer :
=========================
So, one complicated vote thread or six simpler ones maybe?
We should consider using wording similar to the above, which is mostly
from the release guidelines, to clarify what needs doing anyway.
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Laszlo Kishalmi <la...@gmail.com>.
Dear all,
In case if we would like to vote on binaries, IMHO, I'd go with a mixed
option. We could keep the source and the binary zip distribution on a
single thread as they have "instant visibility". Then vote on the
installers (probably by platform) and other binaries on separate threads.
On 10/3/19 3:43 AM, Neil C Smith wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While waiting for some testing with beta2 ahead of announcing it, I
> wanted to follow up on the discussion [1] about approving convenience
> binaries. There was some talk of having a voting or lazy consensus
> thread on them, or linking them to the release vote.
>
> To date, we have only voted on source releases - binaries may have
> been ready at vote time, but in the voting template we've been
> explicitly telling everyone they're not relevant and not linking them
> in!
>
> So, what to do for NB 11.2?
>
> We could add the binaries into the release vote. That would require
> changing our voting template, and I think considering what steps might
> need doing in addition to the required steps for a binding release
> vote from [2]
>
> We could have concurrent voting or consensus threads on the binary
> artefacts, perhaps separate for installers, Maven, etc. If there is a
> problem with any one binary that doesn't require source changes to fix
> it, it then need not delay the release vote itself passing. Some
> binaries may come later.
>
> My preference is probably the second option (if we have to do either).
>
> Incidentally, in the original thread my preference was not to do
> either of these things so formally! At the same time, I did think
> some process so that another PMC member had given the once-over on any
> binary to check requirements had been met was useful. Neither of
> those options actually do that. Maybe there's merit to a consensus
> thread with associated wiki page table of binaries that PMC members
> can tick off when they've checked any one of them? We can know at a
> glance what has and hasn't been checked over.
>
> [1] - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0d11a5d311bb4bdd73ee8488e0383ea2b04166c820be183b54f1182@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> [2] - http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#approving-a-release
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
> Volunteer Release Manager for Apache Netbeans 11.2
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
>
> For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
RE: [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Posted by Eric Barboni <sk...@apache.org>.
All I know from this voting aspect is by following other project.
On Apache Maven vote call contains,
dist is only containing sources , binaries conveniences are on repository.
Vote is handled on one thread.
On Apache Ant vote call contains,
Dist tarball contains sources and binaries ,
Maven repository artefacts
Snap
Vote is handled on one thread.
For Apache http server vote call
They only vote on source on one thread.
IT's explicitly written that binaries are not done by the project. Only by committer to the project.
I think, if we want all our binaries to be endorsed by Apache NetBeans we need to vote on them.
We may try concurrent:
Release Manager only care on building source
Then vote (72h)
3 binding +1 vote
On the voted source, we build conveniences maven,binaries,installer,(eventually snap to be complete ) and for each a vote (72h)
9(+3) binding +1 vote required to have them all.
We may try like Ant or Maven
"Heavy" preparation and synchronization from people that may help preparing Maven,Snap,Installer , with Release Manager
Get a bigger vote mail with all element prepared.(72h)
3 binding +1 vote required to have them all.
Best Regards
Eric
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Neil C Smith <ne...@apache.org>
Envoyé : jeudi 3 octobre 2019 12:43
À : dev <de...@netbeans.apache.org>
Objet : [DISCUSS] Handling convenience binary vote(?) for 11.2
Hi All,
While waiting for some testing with beta2 ahead of announcing it, I wanted to follow up on the discussion [1] about approving convenience binaries. There was some talk of having a voting or lazy consensus thread on them, or linking them to the release vote.
To date, we have only voted on source releases - binaries may have been ready at vote time, but in the voting template we've been explicitly telling everyone they're not relevant and not linking them in!
So, what to do for NB 11.2?
We could add the binaries into the release vote. That would require changing our voting template, and I think considering what steps might need doing in addition to the required steps for a binding release vote from [2]
We could have concurrent voting or consensus threads on the binary artefacts, perhaps separate for installers, Maven, etc. If there is a problem with any one binary that doesn't require source changes to fix it, it then need not delay the release vote itself passing. Some binaries may come later.
My preference is probably the second option (if we have to do either).
Incidentally, in the original thread my preference was not to do either of these things so formally! At the same time, I did think some process so that another PMC member had given the once-over on any binary to check requirements had been met was useful. Neither of those options actually do that. Maybe there's merit to a consensus thread with associated wiki page table of binaries that PMC members can tick off when they've checked any one of them? We can know at a glance what has and hasn't been checked over.
[1] - https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c0d11a5d311bb4bdd73ee8488e0383ea2b04166c820be183b54f1182@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
[2] - http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#approving-a-release
Best wishes,
Neil
Volunteer Release Manager for Apache Netbeans 11.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@netbeans.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@netbeans.apache.org
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists