You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@netbeans.apache.org by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com> on 2017/09/03 14:23:21 UTC
[Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Hello guys,
I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided by
Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and I
started the transition to ASF following the guidance of
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/transitioning_asf.html
I have done cryptography audit of the code and found it clean.
Then I did the first commit. The first commit provides the sources as they were
found in the donation ZIP file. The commit message contains references to (old
and no longer used) Hg repository changeset as well as reference to
appropriate commit in Git repository converted by Emilian (thanks for doing
that, it will be good for the "git replace" command, I think) to allow us to
concatenate the history if needed.
The second commit introduces the LICENSE, NOTICE files and changes the headers
of the source files in the repository to Apache standard wordings (hopefully).
Can you guys review my changes and tell me they are OK? If not, we can throw
them away and start again from scratch. However before I continue to next
steps I'd like to be sure, no revert will be needed.
Re. "On repackaging" - I don't plan any for now to simplify merges and keep
API backward compatible.
Re. "updating documents" - yes, the project is using Maven, so it will need a
bit of updates - I guess I do them as 3rd step, once the first two commits are
found acceptable.
Re. "issue convesion" - Jirka Kovalský is working on it and anyway there is
less then ten open enhancements for HTML/JAVA API.
That would (in my humbly opinion) be it for the transition. Time to look
towards regular development:
- How shall I setup a continuous builder for the Apache NetBeans HTML/Java
API?
Thanks in advance for your advices.
Jaroslav Tulach
NetBeans Founder and initial Architect
>> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>: 02.09.17 @ 10:33 <<
> OK, created a new issue especially for asking for Infra help and also
> especially for uploading the ZIP. The ZIP is too large to be uploaded,
> since the max size for uploading is 60 MB.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_
> browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&
> r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=RqIzNVwFnHJA-VUxTUeSNQk7zl4T
> 4mDPF6JhoghQJzQ&s=RPzhBa8HkWAf0OW0lv6tAQZ_UOMtzfWpmnL2JBdGw68&e=
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
On úterý 5. září 2017 13:39:02 CEST Jan Lahoda wrote:
> Hi Jarda,
>
> Looking at:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git-2Dwip-2Dus.apache.o
> rg_repos_asf-3Fp-3Dincubator-2Dnetbeans-2Dhtml4j.git-3Ba-3Dcommit-3Bh-3Da262
> 480a0126b67975389685925bf5c3e13b4061&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX
> 5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jLbN7WhHM_KK
> QsPXdS_g48lEXb9bMo-1PwMXGXmQXzk&s=y8JAYB1Wq1CRmnqZ7DuRhxuJUMahT_F_V4kGwGdXkQ
> 0&e=
>
> I have two comments:
> -the headers in the pom.xml files appear not to be adjusted.
Thanks for spotting this, Jan. I have fixed that in b4fdfc8314 and also turned
automatic license check for pom.xml files on:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git;a=commit;h=b4fdfc8314c8073059e91de4eea586d194a6b76f
> -when I do:
> git clone git://git.apache.org/incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
>
> I do not see the a262480a0126b67975389685925bf5c3e13b4061 commit. I can see
> it on the web interface, so not sure what is going on. Am I doing something
> wrong?
Hard to say, I just tried it on another computer and it seems to work:
$ git clone git://git.apache.org/incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
Cloning into 'incubator-netbeans-html4j'...
remote: Counting objects: 1337, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (444/444), done.
remote: Total 1337 (delta 380), reused 1294 (delta 338)
Receiving objects: 100% (1337/1337), 1.41 MiB | 382.00 KiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (380/380), done.
Checking connectivity... done.
$ cd incubator-netbeans-html4j/
$ git log
commit b4fdfc8314c8073059e91de4eea586d194a6b76f
Author: Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
Date: Thu Sep 7 09:16:14 2017 +0200
Changing the pom.xml headers to standard Apache wording
commit a262480a0126b67975389685925bf5c3e13b4061
Author: Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
Date: Sun Sep 3 15:59:33 2017 +0200
Adding NOTICE, LICENSE and changing the file headers to standard Apache
wording
commit 408363d49b5d7c138352b2f6d6e389f2e1d6db6d
Author: Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
Date: Sun Sep 3 14:47:24 2017 +0200
[INFRA-15006] Initial donation of HTML/Java NetBeans API.
Equivalent to the content of html4j-donation-review.zip donated as part of
ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip with SHA256 being
7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a.
Equivalent to changeset 929563230c07 of the original http://
hg.netbeans.org/html4j/ NetBeans Hg repository.
Equivalent to commit d029b8e in the Emilian Bold Git conversion https://
github.com/emilianbold/netbeans-html4j/ of the above Hg repository.
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello guys,
> > I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided
> > by
> > Geertjan in issue
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_ji
> > ra_browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057S
> > bK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jLbN7WhHM_KKQsPXdS_g4
> > 8lEXb9bMo-1PwMXGXmQXzk&s=C6KBscynB28I-JQdGI7Xrcvqpukd1teQsprTKmEnqIo&e=
> > and I started the transition to ASF following the guidance of
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__incubator.apache.org_g
> > uides_transitioning-5Fasf.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTp
> > kKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jLbN7WhHM_KKQs
> > PXdS_g48lEXb9bMo-1PwMXGXmQXzk&s=rlrGKU6kY0u2Oz-49Pj_9MeiJ_-3eUlzSIai6LRFpN
> > U&e=
> >
> > I have done cryptography audit of the code and found it clean.
> >
> > Then I did the first commit. The first commit provides the sources as they
> > were
> > found in the donation ZIP file. The commit message contains references to
> > (old
> > and no longer used) Hg repository changeset as well as reference to
> > appropriate commit in Git repository converted by Emilian (thanks for
> > doing
> > that, it will be good for the "git replace" command, I think) to allow us
> > to
> > concatenate the history if needed.
> >
> > The second commit introduces the LICENSE, NOTICE files and changes the
> > headers
> > of the source files in the repository to Apache standard wordings
> > (hopefully).
> >
> > Can you guys review my changes and tell me they are OK? If not, we can
> > throw
> > them away and start again from scratch. However before I continue to next
> > steps I'd like to be sure, no revert will be needed.
> >
> > Re. "On repackaging" - I don't plan any for now to simplify merges and
> > keep
> > API backward compatible.
> >
> > Re. "updating documents" - yes, the project is using Maven, so it will
> > need a
> > bit of updates - I guess I do them as 3rd step, once the first two commits
> > are
> > found acceptable.
> >
> > Re. "issue convesion" - Jirka Kovalský is working on it and anyway there
> > is
> > less then ten open enhancements for HTML/JAVA API.
> >
> > That would (in my humbly opinion) be it for the transition. Time to look
> > towards regular development:
> >
> > - How shall I setup a continuous builder for the Apache NetBeans HTML/Java
> > API?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your advices.
> > Jaroslav Tulach
> > NetBeans Founder and initial Architect
> >
> > >> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>: 02.09.17 @ 10:33
> >
> > <<
> >
> > > OK, created a new issue especially for asking for Infra help and also
> > > especially for uploading the ZIP. The ZIP is too large to be uploaded,
> > > since the max size for uploading is 60 MB.
> > >
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.
> >
> > apache.org_jira_
> >
> > > browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5Y
> >
> > TpkKY057SbK10&
> >
> > > r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=
> >
> > RqIzNVwFnHJA-VUxTUeSNQk7zl4T
> >
> > > 4mDPF6JhoghQJzQ&s=RPzhBa8HkWAf0OW0lv6tAQZ_UOMtzfWpmnL2JBdGw68&e=
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
You're leading the way for NetBeans into Apache like you have always led
the way with NetBeans in Sun and Oracle. Brilliant.
Gj
On Sun, 3 Sep 2017 at 16:23, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hello guys,
> I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided
> by
> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and I
> started the transition to ASF following the guidance of
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/transitioning_asf.html
>
> I have done cryptography audit of the code and found it clean.
>
> Then I did the first commit. The first commit provides the sources as they
> were
> found in the donation ZIP file. The commit message contains references to
> (old
> and no longer used) Hg repository changeset as well as reference to
> appropriate commit in Git repository converted by Emilian (thanks for doing
> that, it will be good for the "git replace" command, I think) to allow us
> to
> concatenate the history if needed.
>
> The second commit introduces the LICENSE, NOTICE files and changes the
> headers
> of the source files in the repository to Apache standard wordings
> (hopefully).
>
> Can you guys review my changes and tell me they are OK? If not, we can
> throw
> them away and start again from scratch. However before I continue to next
> steps I'd like to be sure, no revert will be needed.
>
> Re. "On repackaging" - I don't plan any for now to simplify merges and keep
> API backward compatible.
>
> Re. "updating documents" - yes, the project is using Maven, so it will
> need a
> bit of updates - I guess I do them as 3rd step, once the first two commits
> are
> found acceptable.
>
> Re. "issue convesion" - Jirka Kovalský is working on it and anyway there is
> less then ten open enhancements for HTML/JAVA API.
>
> That would (in my humbly opinion) be it for the transition. Time to look
> towards regular development:
>
> - How shall I setup a continuous builder for the Apache NetBeans HTML/Java
> API?
>
> Thanks in advance for your advices.
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Founder and initial Architect
>
> >> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>: 02.09.17 @ 10:33
> <<
> > OK, created a new issue especially for asking for Infra help and also
> > especially for uploading the ZIP. The ZIP is too large to be uploaded,
> > since the max size for uploading is 60 MB.
> >
> >
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.apache.org_jira_
> >
> browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&
> >
> r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=RqIzNVwFnHJA-VUxTUeSNQk7zl4T
> > 4mDPF6JhoghQJzQ&s=RPzhBa8HkWAf0OW0lv6tAQZ_UOMtzfWpmnL2JBdGw68&e=
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gj,
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> All of the files in the ZIP are donated.
>
> The list of 3rd party libs in the grant is the list of references to 3rd
> party libraries used by the files in the ZIP. Apache legal and Oracle legal
Some transparency, please. Who on the Apache legal team was involved? I do not recall seeing anything go by on the legal-internal list where these things should have been discussed.
My advice, should it have been solicited, would have been to remove all references to third party or separately licensed materials, given that you spent the last six months removing all such material from the zip file.
The zip file was clean. The grant was not.
Craig
> are the ones who defined the requirement for that list to be drawn up.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:18, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
>> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> ...I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip
>> provided by
>>> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and
>> I
>>> started the transition to ASF...
>>
>> I've had a look at the software grant provided with this donation [1]
>> and my non-lawyer understanding of it is that not all files found in
>> that zip are donated.
>>
>> The grant indicates that the contents of that file [2] ("Code File")
>> are donated "excluding any third-party and separately licensed
>> material contained within the Code File".
>>
>> My understanding is that this puts the burden on the NetBeans podling
>> to sort out the files and find out which ones are ok for an ASF
>> release and which ones are not.
>>
>> I'm not going to touch any of this myself, it sounds like a big job
>> and a big responsibility for this podling - but maybe I'm missing
>> something.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> [1] in svn under private/documents/grants/oracle-america-netbeans.pdf
>> - ASF members have access
>> [2] SHA256(ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip)=
>> 7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a
>>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
And the "excluding" clause is a safety clause, i.e., anything in the ZIP
that is third party or separately licensed is indeed not donated. But we've
spent the past 6 months or so removing those files.
Gj
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:37, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> All of the files in the ZIP are donated.
>
> The list of 3rd party libs in the grant is the list of references to 3rd
> party libraries used by the files in the ZIP. Apache legal and Oracle legal
> are the ones who defined the requirement for that list to be drawn up.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:18, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
>> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
>> > ...I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip
>> provided by
>> > Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006
>> and I
>> > started the transition to ASF...
>>
>> I've had a look at the software grant provided with this donation [1]
>> and my non-lawyer understanding of it is that not all files found in
>> that zip are donated.
>>
>> The grant indicates that the contents of that file [2] ("Code File")
>> are donated "excluding any third-party and separately licensed
>> material contained within the Code File".
>>
>> My understanding is that this puts the burden on the NetBeans podling
>> to sort out the files and find out which ones are ok for an ASF
>> release and which ones are not.
>>
>> I'm not going to touch any of this myself, it sounds like a big job
>> and a big responsibility for this podling - but maybe I'm missing
>> something.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> [1] in svn under private/documents/grants/oracle-america-netbeans.pdf
>> - ASF members have access
>> [2] SHA256(ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip)=
>> 7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a
>>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...For now, I'll ask for opinions on our legal-discuss@a.o list, watch
> for a "How to handle exclusions in a software grant?" thread there...
I sent that to general@incubator.a.o instead, as other podlings might
have had similar situations.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
I take your point, of course.
On the other hand, to be fair, though, there's never going to be a 100%
guarantee that there isn't somewhere a file lurking around that might have
been missed. I agree, as well, of course, that the question is "whose
burden is that", i.e., right now it is Apache's burden. But it is a good
and fair burden to have, since one will always have this burden, whoever
receives code has to anticipate the unexpected. And, of course, the
question will be "who is to blame" etc and right now it is Apache who is to
blame if there are problems found later. In the end, though, in the same
way that we did a lot of due diligence in Oracle on the code, we'll do a
lot of due diligence in Apache on the code.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...We'll look into this for the next donation....
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> For me the difference between "here's all donated files, go ahead with
> them" and "here's the files but some might not be ok" is huge, given
> the large number of files.
>
> So if future donations can omit that signing statement that's much
> easier for the podling, IMO.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...We'll look into this for the next donation....
Great, thanks!
For me the difference between "here's all donated files, go ahead with
them" and "here's the files but some might not be ok" is huge, given
the large number of files.
So if future donations can omit that signing statement that's much
easier for the podling, IMO.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
OK, thanks. We'll look into this for the next donation. Then again, as
stated, we had not expected any kind of comment on this given that Apache
legal and Oracle legal met and discussed everything several months prior to
the donation.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > How should it have been worded differently?...
>
> Without exclusions, which I interpret as "if anyone complains about
> any file found in what we donated, it's your fault".
>
> Again that's my pragmatic non-lawyer understanding, which makes me
> uncomfortable committing anything from that archive myself. Nothing
> more at this point.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> How should it have been worded differently?...
Without exclusions, which I interpret as "if anyone complains about
any file found in what we donated, it's your fault".
Again that's my pragmatic non-lawyer understanding, which makes me
uncomfortable committing anything from that archive myself. Nothing
more at this point.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
How should it have been worded differently? And, the legal documents were
arrived at after direct discussions between Apache legal and Oracle legal.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > ...I can confirm the review was very deep and we had to fix a lot of
> issues.
> > Oracle dedicated an independent (of NetBeans) reviewer and he really did
> a
> > throughout job manually looking at every file we are donating and also
> running
> > deep automatic checks over all the files as well...
>
> Don't get me wrong, I fully trust that you guys did a great job at
> filtering this!
>
> My concern is that (again based on my understanding) Oracle is passing
> the responsibility to the ASF for any mistakes in that filtering.
>
> > ...take a look at
> > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
> > and tell me what I should do differently...
>
> I won't. I'm not going to commit anything myself but if others feel
> comfortable doing that that's ok. The risk is having to go through
> everything again later before doing a release.
>
> For now, I'll ask for opinions on our legal-discuss@a.o list, watch
> for a "How to handle exclusions in a software grant?" thread there.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
<ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> ...I can confirm the review was very deep and we had to fix a lot of issues.
> Oracle dedicated an independent (of NetBeans) reviewer and he really did a
> throughout job manually looking at every file we are donating and also running
> deep automatic checks over all the files as well...
Don't get me wrong, I fully trust that you guys did a great job at
filtering this!
My concern is that (again based on my understanding) Oracle is passing
the responsibility to the ASF for any mistakes in that filtering.
> ...take a look at
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
> and tell me what I should do differently...
I won't. I'm not going to commit anything myself but if others feel
comfortable doing that that's ok. The risk is having to go through
everything again later before doing a release.
For now, I'll ask for opinions on our legal-discuss@a.o list, watch
for a "How to handle exclusions in a software grant?" thread there.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
On pondělí 4. září 2017 8:45:14 CEST Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> materials.
Yes, I can confirm the review was very deep and we had to fix a lot of issues.
Oracle dedicated an independent (of NetBeans) reviewer and he really did a
throughout job manually looking at every file we are donating and also running
deep automatic checks over all the files as well.
> The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at all.
Geertjan is always an optimist. It is possible we missed something, but it
cannot be anything large. All JAR files are gone, all XML schemas, all icons
that could be seen as 3rd party were removed or replaced as well. Any code
that could be seen as 3rd party was moved into an external JAR file and isn't
part of the donation.
I am sorry for the wording, but I assume that's how my employer operates. I
just hope the wording has been agreed in discussions with Apache legal and is
acceptable.
In any case I am 100% sure no such "exclusions" are needed in case of NetBeans
HTML/Java API because I wrote and/or reviewed every commit. Thus, don't
hesitate, take a look at
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
and tell me what I should do differently. Try to (finally) enjoy your mentor
role. I really hope we can finally move forward.
-jt
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:43, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >
> > <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > All of the files in the ZIP are donated...
> >
> > That's not my understanding of the grant which says ""excluding any
> > third-party and separately licensed material contained within the Code
> > File".
> >
> > So do you mean that there's no such "third-party and separately
> > licensed material" in that zip file, and if yes how can we verify
> > that?
> >
> > Or do you mean that my understanding is wrong? That's totally
> > possible, I just need to understand why.
> >
> > -Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Mark,
That's great.
Thanks,
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:
> Just go ahead. If anything made it's way into the repo which is not
> supposed to be there we can remove it later.
> Was more kind of an internal note to myself.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 04.09.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bertrand Delacratez:
> >
> > That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
> >>
> >> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
> >> liable for them.
> >>
> >> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
> >> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
> >> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
> >> this donation.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If some files were missed, and they are later discovered -- which given
> how
> > much time we spent on this, analyzing each and every file in the ZIP
> > multiple times and in different ways -- we'll need to remove those files
> > since they weren't donated since they're 3rd party or separately
> licensed.
> >
> > I cannot imagine what kind of file could have escaped the process but if
> > some ASF LEGAL ticket is needed, sure let's do it. Note also that Apache
> > legal spent time discussing with Oracle legal and so there should be no
> > surprises here from a legal point of view.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> ...We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> >>> materials...
> >>
> >> That's great and thanks for your efforts in this.
> >>
> >>> ...The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> >>> something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at
> >> all...
> >>
> >> That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
> >>
> >> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
> >> liable for them.
> >>
> >> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
> >> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
> >> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
> >> this donation.
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
>
>
Re: Checking the headers process
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
On čtvrtek 7. září 2017 11:27:56 CEST Craig Russell wrote:
> Hi Jarda,
>
> Good job. Integrating RAT into the build/CI process is exactly what we
> (incubator) like to see.
Thanks Craig. I've updated the status with references to your words here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/NetBeans+Transition
+Process
-jt
>
> Adding files that have no IP to the RAT exclude list is the right thing to
> do. Probably manifest files will have the same treatment.
>
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
> > wrote:>
> > On středa 6. září 2017 10:39:03 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
> >>
> >> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> >>> ...3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf,
> >>> *.form as I argued in other email) have the Apache license....
> >>
> >> Note that
> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__creadur.apache.org_r
> >> at
> >> _&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_
> >> xBB
> >> lFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jE_4oPC-6gaq8eLsIo3NQShvxWFtCHYuqc3z521KqkE
> >> &s=A D30hOlS-i9up2yBAY7V_iLF7xAZmXx6KkRgJ-n24-s&e= is the standard
> >> Apache tool for this.
> >>
> >> It does allow for exclusions in its configuration file - best is to
> >> make that check part of the release build.
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer Bernard.
> > I've integrated rat-maven-plugin into the build:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__git-2Dwip-2Dus.apache
> > .org_repos_asf-3Fp-3Dincubator-2Dnetbeans-2Dhtml4j.git-3Ba-3Dblobdiff-3Bf-
> > 3Dpom.xml-3Bh-3De9e1d2a38e4d98d1b5a14b9743e066c55d02f49f-3Bhp-3D0bbcdce26f
> > 38805b16e6dcf53f62f01c03ccacb9-3Bhb-3D0f2bc8fb39482d6915c6b98c22d40ffaa553
> > e34f-3Bhpb-3D7c56cda29114f6dc9b09b4d42db4a8b0d2398e6a&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCX
> > CgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP
> > 1FPWgk&m=PCY10wWPFgolxYqufMHFVuxnWLTCb_nZ48Vqw78SzFs&s=fUZ0iytjzNtJrgbJKZF
> > fvRgZIwPhGX9Wwl26rYY3U3Y&e=
> >
> > All files in the html4j repository are clean from Apache perspective now,
> > I
> > assume.
> > -jt
> >
> > PS: I had to exclude *.sigtest files but as they are automatically
> > generated, I labeled them as having "no degree of creativity".
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__db.apache.org_jdo&d=DwI
> FaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ld
> S0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=PCY10wWPFgolxYqufMHFVuxnWLTCb_nZ48Vqw78SzFs&s=LQomln91
> qoAIeJ5Rm2GsdjbEhUlTQ_1JhIrjnr8ildY&e=
Re: Checking the headers process
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jarda,
Good job. Integrating RAT into the build/CI process is exactly what we (incubator) like to see.
Adding files that have no IP to the RAT exclude list is the right thing to do. Probably manifest files will have the same treatment.
Craig
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> On středa 6. září 2017 10:39:03 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
>>
>> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> ...3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf,
>>> *.form as I argued in other email) have the Apache license....
>>
>> Note that
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__creadur.apache.org_rat
>> _&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBB
>> lFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jE_4oPC-6gaq8eLsIo3NQShvxWFtCHYuqc3z521KqkE&s=A
>> D30hOlS-i9up2yBAY7V_iLF7xAZmXx6KkRgJ-n24-s&e= is the standard Apache tool
>> for this.
>>
>> It does allow for exclusions in its configuration file - best is to
>> make that check part of the release build.
>
> Thanks for the pointer Bernard.
> I've integrated rat-maven-plugin into the build:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git;a=blobdiff;f=pom.xml;h=e9e1d2a38e4d98d1b5a14b9743e066c55d02f49f;hp=0bbcdce26f38805b16e6dcf53f62f01c03ccacb9;hb=0f2bc8fb39482d6915c6b98c22d40ffaa553e34f;hpb=7c56cda29114f6dc9b09b4d42db4a8b0d2398e6a
>
> All files in the html4j repository are clean from Apache perspective now, I
> assume.
> -jt
>
> PS: I had to exclude *.sigtest files but as they are automatically generated, I
> labeled them as having "no degree of creativity".
>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: Checking the headers process
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
On středa 6. září 2017 10:39:03 CEST Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
>
> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > ...3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf,
> > *.form as I argued in other email) have the Apache license....
>
> Note that
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__creadur.apache.org_rat
> _&d=DwIBaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5YTpkKY057SbK10&r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBB
> lFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=jE_4oPC-6gaq8eLsIo3NQShvxWFtCHYuqc3z521KqkE&s=A
> D30hOlS-i9up2yBAY7V_iLF7xAZmXx6KkRgJ-n24-s&e= is the standard Apache tool
> for this.
>
> It does allow for exclusions in its configuration file - best is to
> make that check part of the release build.
Thanks for the pointer Bernard.
I've integrated rat-maven-plugin into the build:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git;a=blobdiff;f=pom.xml;h=e9e1d2a38e4d98d1b5a14b9743e066c55d02f49f;hp=0bbcdce26f38805b16e6dcf53f62f01c03ccacb9;hb=0f2bc8fb39482d6915c6b98c22d40ffaa553e34f;hpb=7c56cda29114f6dc9b09b4d42db4a8b0d2398e6a
All files in the html4j repository are clean from Apache perspective now, I
assume.
-jt
PS: I had to exclude *.sigtest files but as they are automatically generated, I
labeled them as having "no degree of creativity".
Re: Checking the headers process was: [Mentors] Review my migration
steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
<ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> ...3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf, *.form as I
> argued in other email) have the Apache license....
Note that https://creadur.apache.org/rat/ is the standard Apache tool for this.
It does allow for exclusions in its configuration file - best is to
make that check part of the release build.
-Bertrand
Checking the headers process was: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
Hello Craig,
thanks a lot for taking a look at jackpot30 repository and providing your
opinion...
On pondělí 4. září 2017 12:23:38 CEST Craig Russell wrote:
> I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
>
> There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git repository
> of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other 101 files?
> see below.
>
> This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list of
> 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place to
> start.
>
> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
Excellent. Thank you for doing that.
> It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually
> go through all the files and verify:
The amount of files that are part of netbeans repository is higher than in
jackpot30 and html4j repositories, but I think a review is doable. What I'd
suggest is to apply Jan's process:
1. write a script that recognizes fixed set of NetBeans headers and converts
them to Apache header.
2. do the conversion
3. verify all files (except well known exceptions like manifest.mf, *.form as I
argued in other email) have the Apache license.
4. manually go through the remaining files and discuss their status or improve
the script and start with 1. again
> What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the
> 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to
> the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
If this is the goal that we are aiming at, then I am positive we can achieve
it.
-jt
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org>.
.form files are related to the Swing designer. They do not necessarily “house” the code, though they will overwrite certain code from the .java file if the Java is modified outside of NetBeans, causing the files to become out of sync, as they maintain some event logic and Swing specific layout information. They are very specific to the NetBeans form designer. They can be used to build NetBeans itself or used to build your own Swing based UI, including those on top of the NetBeans RCP. They are not used at compile time at all, but only used when opening the files in the Swing visual editor (Form Editor) inside of the IDE.
So, they do represent code to some degree, at least for maintaining code using the Form Designer, but they are XML files specifically related to how the designer keeps the .java file updated, protected, etc during edits.
Hope it helps,
Wade
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 01:42, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Resolving this issue is important for later but not important to the present task of importing the donated files.
>
> I'm not familiar enough with the work flow for .form files which makes this thread impossible for me to follow.
>
> The goal is to have the .form files contain an Apache header when distributing the project. Manually adding the header seems awkward at best.
>
> The tool creates a .form files. What exactly is the process? Else thread I recall it was said that non-Apache-licensed .form files should also be supported. So always adding the Apache header is clearly inappropriate.
>
> If I understood better the process for creating and editing the .form files I could make some suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Either way, I think doing what is suggested in these couple comments, and what Jarda is saying, are orthogonal. I feel we should take it as it is at the moment, as Jarda suggested, and if it isn’t supported, it isn’t. There is a license file for the project as a whole, and there are files in the Java files one must have for the form file to have any meaning any ways. The rest, I suggest is a new thread and a Jira issue for a feature; IMHO. Otherwise the thread will get convoluted.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Wade
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:26, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jan,
>>>
>>> The idea would be to add the license only if it's configured for the
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
>>>>>> -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
>>>>>> -manually add the headers to the form files
>>>>>> -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
>>>>>> form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header
>>>> manually
>>>>>> for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
>>>>> on
>>>>>> each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more
>>>> often,
>>>>> they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files
>>>> too.
>>>>> It'd be painful do it manually.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
>>>> created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
>>>> through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
>>>> be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
>>>>
>>>> If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
>>>> issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
>>>> license headers for forms).
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But
>>>> as
>>>>> said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
>>>>> with the policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Resolving this issue is important for later but not important to the present task of importing the donated files.
I'm not familiar enough with the work flow for .form files which makes this thread impossible for me to follow.
The goal is to have the .form files contain an Apache header when distributing the project. Manually adding the header seems awkward at best.
The tool creates a .form files. What exactly is the process? Else thread I recall it was said that non-Apache-licensed .form files should also be supported. So always adding the Apache header is clearly inappropriate.
If I understood better the process for creating and editing the .form files I could make some suggestions.
Regards,
Craig
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Either way, I think doing what is suggested in these couple comments, and what Jarda is saying, are orthogonal. I feel we should take it as it is at the moment, as Jarda suggested, and if it isn’t supported, it isn’t. There is a license file for the project as a whole, and there are files in the Java files one must have for the form file to have any meaning any ways. The rest, I suggest is a new thread and a Jira issue for a feature; IMHO. Otherwise the thread will get convoluted.
>
> Thanks
>
> Wade
>
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:26, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jan,
>>
>> The idea would be to add the license only if it's configured for the
>> project.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
>>>>> -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
>>>>> -manually add the headers to the form files
>>>>> -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
>>>>> form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header
>>> manually
>>>>> for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
>>>>>
>>>>> (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
>>>> on
>>>>> each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more
>>> often,
>>>> they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files
>>> too.
>>>> It'd be painful do it manually.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
>>> created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
>>> through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
>>> be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
>>>
>>> If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
>>> issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
>>> license headers for forms).
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But
>>> as
>>>> said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
>>>> with the policy.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>
>
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Wade Chandler <wa...@apache.org>.
Either way, I think doing what is suggested in these couple comments, and what Jarda is saying, are orthogonal. I feel we should take it as it is at the moment, as Jarda suggested, and if it isn’t supported, it isn’t. There is a license file for the project as a whole, and there are files in the Java files one must have for the form file to have any meaning any ways. The rest, I suggest is a new thread and a Jira issue for a feature; IMHO. Otherwise the thread will get convoluted.
Thanks
Wade
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 14:26, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jan,
>
> The idea would be to add the license only if it's configured for the
> project.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
>>>> -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
>>>> -manually add the headers to the form files
>>>> -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
>>>> form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header
>> manually
>>>> for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
>>>>
>>>> (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
>>> on
>>>> each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more
>> often,
>>> they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files
>> too.
>>> It'd be painful do it manually.
>>>
>>
>> If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
>> created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
>> through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
>> be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
>>
>> If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
>> issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
>> license headers for forms).
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But
>> as
>>> said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
>>> with the policy.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Jan,
The idea would be to add the license only if it's configured for the
project.
Regards,
Michael
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
> > > -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
> > > -manually add the headers to the form files
> > > -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
> > > form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header
> manually
> > > for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
> > >
> > > (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
> > on
> > > each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
> > >
> >
> > If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more
> often,
> > they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files
> too.
> > It'd be painful do it manually.
> >
>
> If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
> created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
> through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
> be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
>
> If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
> issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
> license headers for forms).
>
> Jan
>
>
> >
> > And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But
> as
> > said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
> > with the policy.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael
> >
>
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:50 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
> > -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
> > -manually add the headers to the form files
> > -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
> > form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header manually
> > for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
> >
> > (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header
> on
> > each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
> >
>
> If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more often,
> they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files too.
> It'd be painful do it manually.
>
If we changed the templates to include the license headers, then newly
created files would get them (and the headers would then be preserved
through future saves). I suspect adding the headers to existing files would
be simpler using a script than by opening them and having them regenerated.
If we would add the headers on each save, I'd be worried it could cause
issues for existing files in version controls (for people that don't use
license headers for forms).
Jan
>
> And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But as
> said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
> with the policy.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
> -change the form editor to preserve leading comments
> -manually add the headers to the form files
> -(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
> form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header manually
> for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
>
> (I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header on
> each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
>
If we believe Apache projects will be developed using NetBeans more often,
they will need to have license headers added to their own .form files too.
It'd be painful do it manually.
And NetBeans would be more consistent about license header handling. But as
said, for the first release, I'd add them manually just to be compliant
with the policy.
Regards,
Michael
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > ...When we did the Oracle review we managed to convince the reviewer
> that certain
> > files don't need a license....
>
> The ASF equivalent of that is
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html which says "a file
> without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its
> structure" doesn't need a license header.
>
> I don't know if the form & manifest files fall in that category.
>
> > ...On the other hand, I believe, solving the ".form problem" is of little
> > priority for the audit that we are doing....
>
> I agree, as long as any exceptions such as this one are documented as
> part of the NETBEANS-54 process. Either directly in that ticket or in
> scripts of configurations files linked from it.
>
> The first incubating release doesn't have to be perfect, but questions
> such as "why don't those files have license headers" are best answered
> by pointing to a permanent URL that has the explanation. Not having
> that usually means having to re-explain things N times ;-)
>
For forms, I guess we could (at some point):
-change the form editor to preserve leading comments
-manually add the headers to the form files
-(possibly) change the templates to include the license header when the
form file is created (but if we don't, adding the license header manually
for code in Apache NetBeans probably wouldn't be that troublesome).
(I don't think we should change the form editor to force add the header on
each save, simply preserving what is there should be enough I think.)
Jan
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my
migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
<ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> ...When we did the Oracle review we managed to convince the reviewer that certain
> files don't need a license....
The ASF equivalent of that is
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html which says "a file
without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its
structure" doesn't need a license header.
I don't know if the form & manifest files fall in that category.
> ...On the other hand, I believe, solving the ".form problem" is of little
> priority for the audit that we are doing....
I agree, as long as any exceptions such as this one are documented as
part of the NETBEANS-54 process. Either directly in that ticket or in
scripts of configurations files linked from it.
The first incubating release doesn't have to be perfect, but questions
such as "why don't those files have license headers" are best answered
by pointing to a permanent URL that has the explanation. Not having
that usually means having to re-explain things N times ;-)
-Bertrand
Form files & manifest files headers was: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>.
When we did the Oracle review we managed to convince the reviewer that certain
files don't need a license.
As Jan explains having a license in manifest.mf files has a potential runtime
impact. Thus it is not there and I don't think we should strive to add it.
Michael's idea of modifying NetBeans to keep license in .form files is an
interesting one. Yes, that could work. Please take a look at http://
hg.netbeans.org/releases/file/release82/form/src/org/netbeans/modules/form/
GandalfPersistenceManager.java and consider some patches.
On the other hand, I believe, solving the ".form problem" is of little
priority for the audit that we are doing. Clearly all these files are generated
by the NetBeans IDE and accompanied with .java file with the same prefix which
contains the license. They work in orchestration and they aren't useful
without each other - thus I believe we are focusing on something that isn't a
blocker for accepting the donation.
Let's exclude manifest.mf and *.form files from the license check.
-jt
On úterý 5. září 2017 8:36:06 CEST Michael Nascimento wrote:
> Craig,
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
> > > netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
> > > CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
> > > xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
> > > 6 form files
> >
> > This is a little bit tricky, as these files are generated by a GUI editor.
>
> That's what I meant by generated, Jan did a way better job explaining it.
> They are generated *by the IDE* but not from any source files included in
> the grant.
>
> It's a tricky problem actually because if we modify NB to include the
> license header in the generated files, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever
> for most end users (their work is not Apache-licensed). If we manually add
> the license to these files, everybody someone touches them, the license
> will get lost and the person needs to remember to add it back.
>
> So to make it practical, the compromise solution would be to modify NB to
> include the license header only if the project is Apache licensed. But
> then, there are tons of different projects and ways to figure out their
> license. Sounds like a issue to be implemented in the new Apache NetBeans
> development cycle, not something to be done now.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Michael
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
Even for release, we can manually add the NOTICE at the top. The problem is
to keep that in mind at all times. For that, we need a long term solution.
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> This should be resolved for the future. I agree it's not going to affect
> the initial code import. But we do need to resolve it by the time a release
> is made. It may be that all we need is something like "This file is
> licensed under the same terms as the similarly named .java file" or
> somewhat.
>
> The reason we need to resolve it is to remove ambiguity for downstream
> consumers of a future release.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Regarding this, for the very initial contribution, adding fixed headers
> > should do the trick. The problem is as we evolve the code base. So I'm
> not
> > saying the ticket is unnecessary, just not a blocker for the donation to
> be
> > "untangled".
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michael
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to
> discuss
> >> how to license .form files.
> >>
> >> I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith <
> neilcsmith.net@googlemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
> >>>> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
> >>>> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the
> donation.
> >>>> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache
> headers
> >> in
> >>>> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to
> >> generate
> >>>> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for
> >> the
> >>> future! ;-)
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes,
> >>>
> >>> Neil
> >>> --
> >>> Neil C Smith
> >>> Artist & Technologist
> >>> www.neilcsmith.net
> >>>
> >>> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding -
> www.praxislive.org
> >>
> >> Craig L Russell
> >> clr@apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
This should be resolved for the future. I agree it's not going to affect the initial code import. But we do need to resolve it by the time a release is made. It may be that all we need is something like "This file is licensed under the same terms as the similarly named .java file" or somewhat.
The reason we need to resolve it is to remove ambiguity for downstream consumers of a future release.
Regards,
Craig
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 12:13 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Regarding this, for the very initial contribution, adding fixed headers
> should do the trick. The problem is as we evolve the code base. So I'm not
> saying the ticket is unnecessary, just not a blocker for the donation to be
> "untangled".
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to discuss
>> how to license .form files.
>>
>> I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
>>>> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
>>>> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
>>>> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers
>> in
>>>> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to
>> generate
>>>> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
>>>>
>>>>
>>> To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for
>> the
>>> future! ;-)
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Neil
>>> --
>>> Neil C Smith
>>> Artist & Technologist
>>> www.neilcsmith.net
>>>
>>> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> clr@apache.org
>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Regarding this, for the very initial contribution, adding fixed headers
should do the trick. The problem is as we evolve the code base. So I'm not
saying the ticket is unnecessary, just not a blocker for the donation to be
"untangled".
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to discuss
> how to license .form files.
>
> I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.
>
> Craig
>
> > On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
> >> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
> >> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
> >> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers
> in
> >> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to
> generate
> >> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
> >>
> >>
> > To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for
> the
> > future! ;-)
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Neil
> > --
> > Neil C Smith
> > Artist & Technologist
> > www.neilcsmith.net
> >
> > Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I just opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-327 to discuss how to license .form files.
I do not believe that this situation has been seen before.
Craig
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
>> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
>> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
>> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers in
>> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to generate
>> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
>>
>>
> To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for the
> future! ;-)
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
> --
> Neil C Smith
> Artist & Technologist
> www.neilcsmith.net
>
> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:10 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
> differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
> (Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
> Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers in
> files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to generate
> license headers could be useful to the general audience).
>
>
To be clear, I'm absolutely in favour of option c) now and probably for the
future! ;-)
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Neil,
Two of your options require modifying NetBeans so it generates files
differently; that's why I think this is an issue for Apache NetBeans
(Incubating) rather than something we should do as part of the donation.
Doesn't make much sense to require a project to generate Apache headers in
files at the moment it's being donated (and I agree having NB to generate
license headers could be useful to the general audience).
Regards,
Michael
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Neil C Smith <neilcsmith.net@googlemail.com
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:36 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That's what I meant by generated, Jan did a way better job explaining it.
> > They are generated *by the IDE* but not from any source files included in
> > the grant.
> >
>
> Isn't it a little more complicated than that, in that the .java file is
> also part-generated, from the info in the matching .form file. To NetBeans
> these are treated in some ways as being a single entity. So ...
>
>
> >
> > It's a tricky problem actually because if we modify NB to include the
> > license header in the generated files, it doesn't make any sense
> whatsoever
> > for most end users (their work is not Apache-licensed). If we manually
> add
> > the license to these files, everybody someone touches them, the license
> > will get lost and the person needs to remember to add it back.
> >
> >
> Given a .form file is mostly irrelevant without its .java file, could we
> not
>
> a) copy across the license info on each save in an XML compatible way
> [hard], or
> b) add a generic XML comment referring people to the license and copyright
> info in the .java file [easier], or
> c) agree that for all intents and purposes the .form is part of the .java
> entity and leave it as it is [even easier! ;-) ]
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Neil
> --
> Neil C Smith
> Artist & Technologist
> www.neilcsmith.net
>
> Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Neil C Smith <ne...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:36 PM Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's what I meant by generated, Jan did a way better job explaining it.
> They are generated *by the IDE* but not from any source files included in
> the grant.
>
Isn't it a little more complicated than that, in that the .java file is
also part-generated, from the info in the matching .form file. To NetBeans
these are treated in some ways as being a single entity. So ...
>
> It's a tricky problem actually because if we modify NB to include the
> license header in the generated files, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever
> for most end users (their work is not Apache-licensed). If we manually add
> the license to these files, everybody someone touches them, the license
> will get lost and the person needs to remember to add it back.
>
>
Given a .form file is mostly irrelevant without its .java file, could we not
a) copy across the license info on each save in an XML compatible way
[hard], or
b) add a generic XML comment referring people to the license and copyright
info in the .java file [easier], or
c) agree that for all intents and purposes the .form is part of the .java
entity and leave it as it is [even easier! ;-) ]
Best wishes,
Neil
--
Neil C Smith
Artist & Technologist
www.neilcsmith.net
Praxis LIVE - hybrid visual IDE for creative coding - www.praxislive.org
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Craig,
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
> > netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
> > CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
> > xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
> > 6 form files
> >
>
> This is a little bit tricky, as these files are generated by a GUI editor.
>
>
That's what I meant by generated, Jan did a way better job explaining it.
They are generated *by the IDE* but not from any source files included in
the grant.
It's a tricky problem actually because if we modify NB to include the
license header in the generated files, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever
for most end users (their work is not Apache-licensed). If we manually add
the license to these files, everybody someone touches them, the license
will get lost and the person needs to remember to add it back.
So to make it practical, the compromise solution would be to modify NB to
include the license header only if the project is Apache licensed. But
then, there are tons of different projects and ways to figure out their
license. Sounds like a issue to be implemented in the new Apache NetBeans
development cycle, not something to be done now.
What do you think?
Regards,
Michael
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the comments. Some responses are inlined:
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
>
> There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git
> repository of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other
> 101 files? see below.
>
> This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list
> of 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place
> to start.
>
> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
>
> It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually
> go through all the files and verify:
>
> The imported files had an Oracle license.
> The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
> What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.
>
> One file of the 101:
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
> This is a two line file that probably needs no header
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
> This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
>
For manifests, there is AFAIK no direct way to add comments. Could be
workarounded using a manifest attribute, like:
X-Comment: ....
which may have a runtime impact (as the attribute is not a comment, but a
real attribute with a real value), and feels a little bit weird.
>
> 36 files are manifest files.
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
> Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
>
I guess a License section would be useful there, right? (Rather than adding
a header, which seems weird for a README.) Seems ant has something like
that, I'll add that.
> 2 README
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 /
> golden
> Doesn't appear to have any content
> 4 golden files
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
> netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
> CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
> xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
> 6 form files
>
This is a little bit tricky, as these files are generated by a GUI editor.
So far, I think we were considering them to be under the same license as
the adjacent Java source code (which is partially based on the .form file).
If we need to add a license header, then I guess we need to update the
editor to preserve it, so that we don't need to do manual changes to the
file before each commit (which feels a little bit like doing manual changes
to a png file).
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src /
> org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
> 32 png files that do not need Apache headers
> 80
>
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven
>
> 3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers
>
> remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
> 7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match
> exactly
>
> remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
> 13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers
>
> What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the
> 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to
> the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
>
If anyone could volunteer to that, I'd be happy. (I of course think the
changes are OK, but that's not an independent confirmation.)
Thanks,
Jan
>
> Craig
>
> [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335
>
> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> > <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> ...what are the
> >> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
> >
> > This was recently discussed here:
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b
> 9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> >> And isn't
> >> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
> >
> > It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> > whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
> >
> > And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> > files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
> >
> > Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> > problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> > affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> > have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> > time, based on scripts under version control.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Craig Russell wrote:
This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list of
> 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place to
> start.
>
> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
>
Many thanks for this review, Craig, it is great to get this feedback.
I think it's pretty handy that we have these smaller repos, the 'html4j'
repo and the 'jackpot30' repo, enabling us to get a feel for what kind of
comments and work we're going to get with the larger 'netbeans' repo.
Great to see Michael Nascimento, a well known user and fan of the NetBeans
Jackpot functionality, involved in this thread too!
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
>
> There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git
> repository of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other
> 101 files? see below.
>
> This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list
> of 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place
> to start.
>
> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
>
> It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually
> go through all the files and verify:
>
> The imported files had an Oracle license.
> The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
> What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.
>
> One file of the 101:
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
> This is a two line file that probably needs no header
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
> This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
>
> 36 files are manifest files.
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
> Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
> 2 README
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 /
> golden
> Doesn't appear to have any content
> 4 golden files
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
> netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
> CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
> xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
> 6 form files
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src /
> org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
> 32 png files that do not need Apache headers
> 80
>
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven
>
> 3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers
>
> remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
> 7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match
> exactly
>
> remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
> 13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers
>
> What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the
> 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to
> the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
>
> Craig
>
> [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335
>
> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> > <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> ...what are the
> >> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
> >
> > This was recently discussed here:
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b
> 9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> >> And isn't
> >> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
> >
> > It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> > whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
> >
> > And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> > files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
> >
> > Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> > problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> > affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> > have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> > time, based on scripts under version control.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
Hi Michael,
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> About form files: they are generated by NetBeans Matisse, so if the license
> is added, next time they are regenerated, the header will be gone. Are you
> sure the header must be added then?
Generated files do not need headers.
If they are generated, they should not have been part of the grant. No big deal.
Just fishing here. Is there a way to generate the files somehow/somewhere that won't be mistaken for human-created IP?
But it would be nice if they could be generated such that there is no mistaking them for IP.
Regards,
Craig
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
>>
>> There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git
>> repository of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other
>> 101 files? see below.
>>
>> This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list
>> of 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place
>> to start.
>>
>> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
>>
>> It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually
>> go through all the files and verify:
>>
>> The imported files had an Oracle license.
>> The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
>> What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.
>>
>> One file of the 101:
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
>> This is a two line file that probably needs no header
>>
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
>> This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of
>> the Apache header
>>
>> 36 files are manifest files.
>>
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
>> Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of
>> the Apache header
>> 2 README
>>
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 /
>> golden
>> Doesn't appear to have any content
>> 4 golden files
>>
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
>> netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
>> CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
>> xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
>> 6 form files
>>
>> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src /
>> org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
>> 32 png files that do not need Apache headers
>> 80
>>
>> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
>> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
>> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven
>>
>> 3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers
>>
>> remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
>> 7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match
>> exactly
>>
>> remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
>> 13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers
>>
>> What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the
>> 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to
>> the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
>> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
>> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>>> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> ...what are the
>>>> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
>>>
>>> This was recently discussed here:
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b
>> 9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>> And isn't
>>>> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
>>>
>>> It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
>>> whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
>>>
>>> And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
>>> files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
>>>
>>> Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
>>> problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
>>> affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
>>> have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
>>> time, based on scripts under version control.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>
>> Craig L Russell
>> clr@apache.org
>>
>>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Michael Nascimento <mi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Craig,
About form files: they are generated by NetBeans Matisse, so if the license
is added, next time they are regenerated, the header will be gone. Are you
sure the header must be added then?
Regards,
Michael
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
>
> There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git
> repository of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other
> 101 files? see below.
>
> This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list
> of 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place
> to start.
>
> I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
>
> It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually
> go through all the files and verify:
>
> The imported files had an Oracle license.
> The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
> What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.
>
> One file of the 101:
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
> This is a two line file that probably needs no header
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
> This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
>
> 36 files are manifest files.
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
> Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of
> the Apache header
> 2 README
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 /
> golden
> Doesn't appear to have any content
> 4 golden files
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org /
> netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options /
> CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
> xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
> 6 form files
>
> [incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src /
> org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
> 32 png files that do not need Apache headers
> 80
>
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
> remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven
>
> 3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers
>
> remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
> 7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match
> exactly
>
> remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
> 13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers
>
> What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the
> 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to
> the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
>
> Craig
>
> [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-
> netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335
>
> > On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> > <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> ...what are the
> >> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
> >
> > This was recently discussed here:
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b
> 9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> >
> >> And isn't
> >> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
> >
> > It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> > whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
> >
> > And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> > files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
> >
> > Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> > problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> > affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> > have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> > time, based on scripts under version control.
> >
> > -Bertrand
>
> Craig L Russell
> clr@apache.org
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
I'm not mentoring this project, so this is just peanut gallery talk.
There are 644 new files in the incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git repository of which 543 have had modifications. What happened to the other 101 files? see below.
This is an excellent start at due diligence IP clearance. We have a list of 644 files to review. Scripts might help, but the git log is a good place to start.
I looked at a small number of files and it all looked fine.
It is not an insurmountable task for some number of volunteers to manually go through all the files and verify:
The imported files had an Oracle license.
The changed files now have the standard Apache header.
What is the story with the other 101 files? see below.
One file of the 101:
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ant / manifest.mf
This is a two line file that probably needs no header
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / ap / manifest.mf
This has some trivial content but could probably use a short version of the Apache header
36 files are manifest files.
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / compiler / scripts / README
Short file, some trivial content, could probably use a short version of the Apache header
2 README
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / cmdline / maven / tests / sl-15 / golden
Doesn't appear to have any content
4 golden files
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / api / src / org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / remotingapi / options / CustomizeRemoteIndex.form
xml file with significant data that should have an Apache license
6 form files
[incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git] / remoting / ide / browsing / src / org / netbeans / modules / jackpot30 / ide/ browsing / class.png
32 png files that do not need Apache headers
80
remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/ignore-standard
remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-ant-based
remoting/server/indexer/impl/release/patterns/project-marker-maven
3 trivial files that do not need Apache headers
remoting/server/tests/testcases/sources/simple.tc/response
7 response files that cannot have Apache headers because they must match exactly
remoting/server/web/web.ui/src/icons/annotation.gif
13 gif files that cannot have Apache headers
What's left for this import? I'd say someone should simply go through the 543 files [1] and verify that the Oracle license was properly changed to the Apache license. Eyeballing should be sufficient.
Craig
[1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=9ed0a3779e5ab9860c2126a9377da9b1b7aaa335
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> ...what are the
>> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
>
> This was recently discussed here:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>
>> And isn't
>> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
>
> It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
>
> And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
>
> Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> time, based on scripts under version control.
>
> -Bertrand
Craig L Russell
clr@apache.org
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Toni Epple <to...@eppleton.de>.
Jaroslav mentioned that automated scripts have been used (besides manual inspection) to identify suspicious files. Why not take these scripts, at least as a starting point? Then you have documented evidence of due diligence, at least for the automated part without starting all over again.
Toni
Von meinem iPad gesendet
> Am 04.09.2017 um 14:03 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>:
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> ...what are the
>> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
>
> This was recently discussed here:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
>
>> And isn't
>> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
>
> It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
> whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
>
> And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
> files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
>
> Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
> problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
> affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
> have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
> time, based on scripts under version control.
>
> -Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...what are the
> exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo?...
This was recently discussed here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/71b7aba8f363898b6135d3b078fa1b9fb298d762c814abf2836b7625@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
> And isn't
> identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?...
It is - but new code that's committed here is covered by the iCLAs of
whoever commits it, so it's not much work.
And new third-party dependencies are visible in pom.xml or similar
files, looking at the diffs is not huge either.
Having to look at a large number of files, of which a few might be
problematic, without having clear criteria for which ones are
affected, is a lot of work. If someone can write scripts for that, we
have at least a traceable and documented way that can be improved over
time, based on scripts under version control.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
I mean something different to that: doesn't each and every incubator
project need to go through a number of processes, steps, instructions, etc,
prior to the incubator release? My question is about that -- what are the
exact steps we need to take once the code is in the repo? And isn't
identifying 3rd party references always part of those steps?
Gj
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 13:42, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...What is the process that will be followed to determine 3rd party
> > references? I.e., how/what are the next steps to be taken, once the code
> is
> > in Apache Git repos?...
>
> If someone can create scripts which look at the files and flag
> suspicious ones that would help. I have no clue myself which
> heuristics to use for that, let's hope people who are familiar with
> that code will have good ideas.
>
> Those scripts should be under version control so they are traceable and
> managed.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:56 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...What is the process that will be followed to determine 3rd party
> references? I.e., how/what are the next steps to be taken, once the code is
> in Apache Git repos?...
If someone can create scripts which look at the files and flag
suspicious ones that would help. I have no clue myself which
heuristics to use for that, let's hope people who are familiar with
that code will have good ideas.
Those scripts should be under version control so they are traceable and managed.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Right, makes sense. We will work on this.
What is the process that will be followed to determine 3rd party
references? I.e., how/what are the next steps to be taken, once the code is
in Apache Git repos?
Thanks,
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...Over the past 6 months, Oracle assigned someone outside the NetBeans
> team
> > to analyze each and every file for its provenance....
>
> Once again, I'm not putting any of this into question and I'm fully
> ready to believe that it was done seriously and extensively.
>
> My only concern is that, now that Oracle has put the burden on the ASF
> for any mistakes in that process, this podling needs to check that
> there are no mistakes in a traceable and documented way, before the
> code can be safely released by the ASF.
>
> How exactly that happens is not very important, as long as it's
> traceable, documented and demonstrates reasonable due diligence. There
> are no Foundation-level resources for doing this, it needs to happen
> in this podling.
>
> I have full trust in you, Jaroslav and others but believing that
> people did the right thing cannot be considered documented and
> traceable due diligence.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...Over the past 6 months, Oracle assigned someone outside the NetBeans team
> to analyze each and every file for its provenance....
Once again, I'm not putting any of this into question and I'm fully
ready to believe that it was done seriously and extensively.
My only concern is that, now that Oracle has put the burden on the ASF
for any mistakes in that process, this podling needs to check that
there are no mistakes in a traceable and documented way, before the
code can be safely released by the ASF.
How exactly that happens is not very important, as long as it's
traceable, documented and demonstrates reasonable due diligence. There
are no Foundation-level resources for doing this, it needs to happen
in this podling.
I have full trust in you, Jaroslav and others but believing that
people did the right thing cannot be considered documented and
traceable due diligence.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Agreed but how do we find out that something's not supposed to be there?
>
> Is that files not having an Oracle copyright notice?
>
> Or files over which someone sues the ASF?
>
> If there's a documented way to detect unwanted files I agree that
> things are easier. For now the only information that I have about the
> difference is "third-party and separately licensed material" with no
> indication on how to detect what's what.
>
Over the past 6 months, Oracle assigned someone outside the NetBeans team
to analyze each and every file for its provenance. Several kinds of
problems were found and solved. For example, icons that do not belong to
Oracle were replaced with greyed-out icons, JARs were removed, XML/DTD
files were removed, and one or two strangely licensed files (e.g., licensed
to specific developers at or outside Oracle) were handled by tracking down
the specifically mentioned authors of those files to ask whether the
licensing was correct and whether those files could be included in the
donation from Oracle to Apache, i.e., whether they'd like to release their
license to Oracle.
That's the process we went through, we could go through the same process
again in Apache. Someone/s would need to be assigned to do this.
I believe that once the donated code is in the Apache Git repo, various
scripts will be run anyway, to determine 3rd party references -- all of
which have already been listed in the Apache legal documents, based on
discussions between Apache legal and Oracle legal -- and I suppose that in
that process if any files have been missed over the past 6 months, they'll
come to the surface.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> > ...If anything made it's way into the repo which is not supposed to be
> there we can remove it later....
>
> Agreed but how do we find out that something's not supposed to be there?
>
> Is that files not having an Oracle copyright notice?
>
> Or files over which someone sues the ASF?
>
> If there's a documented way to detect unwanted files I agree that
> things are easier. For now the only information that I have about the
> difference is "third-party and separately licensed material" with no
> indication on how to detect what's what.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Mark Struberg
<st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> ...If anything made it's way into the repo which is not supposed to be there we can remove it later....
Agreed but how do we find out that something's not supposed to be there?
Is that files not having an Oracle copyright notice?
Or files over which someone sues the ASF?
If there's a documented way to detect unwanted files I agree that
things are easier. For now the only information that I have about the
difference is "third-party and separately licensed material" with no
indication on how to detect what's what.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Just go ahead. If anything made it's way into the repo which is not supposed to be there we can remove it later.
Was more kind of an internal note to myself.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 04.09.2017 um 11:10 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bertrand Delacratez:
>
> That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
>>
>> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
>> liable for them.
>>
>> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
>> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
>> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
>> this donation.
>>
>
>
> If some files were missed, and they are later discovered -- which given how
> much time we spent on this, analyzing each and every file in the ZIP
> multiple times and in different ways -- we'll need to remove those files
> since they weren't donated since they're 3rd party or separately licensed.
>
> I cannot imagine what kind of file could have escaped the process but if
> some ASF LEGAL ticket is needed, sure let's do it. Note also that Apache
> legal spent time discussing with Oracle legal and so there should be no
> surprises here from a legal point of view.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> ...We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
>>> materials...
>>
>> That's great and thanks for your efforts in this.
>>
>>> ...The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
>>> something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at
>> all...
>>
>> That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
>>
>> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
>> liable for them.
>>
>> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
>> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
>> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
>> this donation.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Bertrand Delacratez:
That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
>
> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
> liable for them.
>
> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
> this donation.
>
If some files were missed, and they are later discovered -- which given how
much time we spent on this, analyzing each and every file in the ZIP
multiple times and in different ways -- we'll need to remove those files
since they weren't donated since they're 3rd party or separately licensed.
I cannot imagine what kind of file could have escaped the process but if
some ASF LEGAL ticket is needed, sure let's do it. Note also that Apache
legal spent time discussing with Oracle legal and so there should be no
surprises here from a legal point of view.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> > materials...
>
> That's great and thanks for your efforts in this.
>
> > ...The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> > something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at
> all...
>
> That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
>
> If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
> liable for them.
>
> This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
> think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
> for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
> this donation.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> materials...
That's great and thanks for your efforts in this.
> ...The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at all...
That's a safety clause from the Oracle's point of view, right?
If some files were missed, my understanding is that it's the ASF who's
liable for them.
This makes me *very* uncomfortable - if my understanding is correct I
think we need at least an ASF LEGAL- ticket to confirm that it's ok
for the Incubator and later NetBeans PMCs to release software based on
this donation.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
What purpose will this have?
Must we wait to do the push to the Apache NetBeans repo?
Ideally, since we have now pushed the html4j repo and jackpot30 repo, which
were in the same ZIP as the NetBeans repi itself, we'd like to now go ahead
and push the NetBeans repo too.
Gj
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:55, Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:
> I'm preparing for a hard week with 2 conf talks + customer stuff in
> parallel.
> I hope I can find a bit spare time to review the zip in the next 2 weeks.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 04.09.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>:
> >
> > We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> > materials. The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> > something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at
> all.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:43, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> >> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> All of the files in the ZIP are donated...
> >>
> >> That's not my understanding of the grant which says ""excluding any
> >> third-party and separately licensed material contained within the Code
> >> File".
> >>
> >> So do you mean that there's no such "third-party and separately
> >> licensed material" in that zip file, and if yes how can we verify
> >> that?
> >>
> >> Or do you mean that my understanding is wrong? That's totally
> >> possible, I just need to understand why.
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
I'm preparing for a hard week with 2 conf talks + customer stuff in parallel.
I hope I can find a bit spare time to review the zip in the next 2 weeks.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 04.09.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>:
>
> We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
> materials. The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
> something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at all.
>
> Gj
>
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:43, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> All of the files in the ZIP are donated...
>>
>> That's not my understanding of the grant which says ""excluding any
>> third-party and separately licensed material contained within the Code
>> File".
>>
>> So do you mean that there's no such "third-party and separately
>> licensed material" in that zip file, and if yes how can we verify
>> that?
>>
>> Or do you mean that my understanding is wrong? That's totally
>> possible, I just need to understand why.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
We spent 6 months removing 3rd party code and separately licensed
materials. The "exclusion" clause ensures that in the event we missed
something, those files are not donated. I am sure we missed nothing at all.
Gj
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:43, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > All of the files in the ZIP are donated...
>
> That's not my understanding of the grant which says ""excluding any
> third-party and separately licensed material contained within the Code
> File".
>
> So do you mean that there's no such "third-party and separately
> licensed material" in that zip file, and if yes how can we verify
> that?
>
> Or do you mean that my understanding is wrong? That's totally
> possible, I just need to understand why.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> All of the files in the ZIP are donated...
That's not my understanding of the grant which says ""excluding any
third-party and separately licensed material contained within the Code
File".
So do you mean that there's no such "third-party and separately
licensed material" in that zip file, and if yes how can we verify
that?
Or do you mean that my understanding is wrong? That's totally
possible, I just need to understand why.
-Bertrand
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
All of the files in the ZIP are donated.
The list of 3rd party libs in the grant is the list of references to 3rd
party libraries used by the files in the ZIP. Apache legal and Oracle legal
are the ones who defined the requirement for that list to be drawn up.
Gj
On Mon, 4 Sep 2017 at 10:18, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
> <ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > ...I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip
> provided by
> > Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and
> I
> > started the transition to ASF...
>
> I've had a look at the software grant provided with this donation [1]
> and my non-lawyer understanding of it is that not all files found in
> that zip are donated.
>
> The grant indicates that the contents of that file [2] ("Code File")
> are donated "excluding any third-party and separately licensed
> material contained within the Code File".
>
> My understanding is that this puts the burden on the NetBeans podling
> to sort out the files and find out which ones are ok for an ASF
> release and which ones are not.
>
> I'm not going to touch any of this myself, it sounds like a big job
> and a big responsibility for this podling - but maybe I'm missing
> something.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] in svn under private/documents/grants/oracle-america-netbeans.pdf
> - ASF members have access
> [2] SHA256(ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip)=
> 7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach
<ja...@oracle.com> wrote:
> ...I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided by
> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and I
> started the transition to ASF...
I've had a look at the software grant provided with this donation [1]
and my non-lawyer understanding of it is that not all files found in
that zip are donated.
The grant indicates that the contents of that file [2] ("Code File")
are donated "excluding any third-party and separately licensed
material contained within the Code File".
My understanding is that this puts the burden on the NetBeans podling
to sort out the files and find out which ones are ok for an ASF
release and which ones are not.
I'm not going to touch any of this myself, it sounds like a big job
and a big responsibility for this podling - but maybe I'm missing
something.
-Bertrand
[1] in svn under private/documents/grants/oracle-america-netbeans.pdf
- ASF members have access
[2] SHA256(ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip)=
7f2ca0f61953a190613c9a0fbcc1b034084b04a4d55d23c02cefffc354e7c24a
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I've added NOTICE and LICENSE files and updated the headers for the
incubator-netbeans-jackpot30 repository here:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-jackpot30.git;a=commit;h=ddcdd3d6e2c523e1db7a292867fe9619eff6b92b
Could this please be reviewed as well?
Any feedback would be welcome!
Thanks,
Jan
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hello guys,
> I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided
> by
> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and I
> started the transition to ASF following the guidance of
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/transitioning_asf.html
>
> I have done cryptography audit of the code and found it clean.
>
> Then I did the first commit. The first commit provides the sources as they
> were
> found in the donation ZIP file. The commit message contains references to
> (old
> and no longer used) Hg repository changeset as well as reference to
> appropriate commit in Git repository converted by Emilian (thanks for doing
> that, it will be good for the "git replace" command, I think) to allow us
> to
> concatenate the history if needed.
>
> The second commit introduces the LICENSE, NOTICE files and changes the
> headers
> of the source files in the repository to Apache standard wordings
> (hopefully).
>
> Can you guys review my changes and tell me they are OK? If not, we can
> throw
> them away and start again from scratch. However before I continue to next
> steps I'd like to be sure, no revert will be needed.
>
> Re. "On repackaging" - I don't plan any for now to simplify merges and keep
> API backward compatible.
>
> Re. "updating documents" - yes, the project is using Maven, so it will
> need a
> bit of updates - I guess I do them as 3rd step, once the first two commits
> are
> found acceptable.
>
> Re. "issue convesion" - Jirka Kovalský is working on it and anyway there is
> less then ten open enhancements for HTML/JAVA API.
>
> That would (in my humbly opinion) be it for the transition. Time to look
> towards regular development:
>
> - How shall I setup a continuous builder for the Apache NetBeans HTML/Java
> API?
>
> Thanks in advance for your advices.
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Founder and initial Architect
>
> >> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>: 02.09.17 @ 10:33
> <<
> > OK, created a new issue especially for asking for Infra help and also
> > especially for uploading the ZIP. The ZIP is too large to be uploaded,
> > since the max size for uploading is 60 MB.
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.
> apache.org_jira_
> > browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5Y
> TpkKY057SbK10&
> > r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=
> RqIzNVwFnHJA-VUxTUeSNQk7zl4T
> > 4mDPF6JhoghQJzQ&s=RPzhBa8HkWAf0OW0lv6tAQZ_UOMtzfWpmnL2JBdGw68&e=
>
>
Re: [Mentors] Review my migration steps was: My first commit
Posted by Jan Lahoda <la...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jarda,
Looking at:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans-html4j.git;a=commit;h=a262480a0126b67975389685925bf5c3e13b4061
I have two comments:
-the headers in the pom.xml files appear not to be adjusted.
-when I do:
git clone git://git.apache.org/incubator-netbeans-html4j.git
I do not see the a262480a0126b67975389685925bf5c3e13b4061 commit. I can see
it on the web interface, so not sure what is going on. Am I doing something
wrong?
Jan
On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hello guys,
> I've taken the HTML/Java API from the ApacheNetBeansDonation1.zip provided
> by
> Geertjan in issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15006 and I
> started the transition to ASF following the guidance of
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/transitioning_asf.html
>
> I have done cryptography audit of the code and found it clean.
>
> Then I did the first commit. The first commit provides the sources as they
> were
> found in the donation ZIP file. The commit message contains references to
> (old
> and no longer used) Hg repository changeset as well as reference to
> appropriate commit in Git repository converted by Emilian (thanks for doing
> that, it will be good for the "git replace" command, I think) to allow us
> to
> concatenate the history if needed.
>
> The second commit introduces the LICENSE, NOTICE files and changes the
> headers
> of the source files in the repository to Apache standard wordings
> (hopefully).
>
> Can you guys review my changes and tell me they are OK? If not, we can
> throw
> them away and start again from scratch. However before I continue to next
> steps I'd like to be sure, no revert will be needed.
>
> Re. "On repackaging" - I don't plan any for now to simplify merges and keep
> API backward compatible.
>
> Re. "updating documents" - yes, the project is using Maven, so it will
> need a
> bit of updates - I guess I do them as 3rd step, once the first two commits
> are
> found acceptable.
>
> Re. "issue convesion" - Jirka Kovalský is working on it and anyway there is
> less then ten open enhancements for HTML/JAVA API.
>
> That would (in my humbly opinion) be it for the transition. Time to look
> towards regular development:
>
> - How shall I setup a continuous builder for the Apache NetBeans HTML/Java
> API?
>
> Thanks in advance for your advices.
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Founder and initial Architect
>
> >> Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>: 02.09.17 @ 10:33
> <<
> > OK, created a new issue especially for asking for Infra help and also
> > especially for uploading the ZIP. The ZIP is too large to be uploaded,
> > since the max size for uploading is 60 MB.
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__issues.
> apache.org_jira_
> > browse_INFRA-2D15006&d=DwIFaQ&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PQcxBKCX5Y
> TpkKY057SbK10&
> > r=tnLz5-vaI8x9g_xBBlFGf_ldS0-TN1M3i9fMP1FPWgk&m=
> RqIzNVwFnHJA-VUxTUeSNQk7zl4T
> > 4mDPF6JhoghQJzQ&s=RPzhBa8HkWAf0OW0lv6tAQZ_UOMtzfWpmnL2JBdGw68&e=
>
>