Well, I have some concerns on FoN. According to their main page it's a
group of 3 people, possibly affiliated with Azul Systems (as a preferred
JDK Vendor). The main page states the latest version they provided was
NetBeans 28.
From the outside, it does not seem to function well at the moment.
Looking at Codelerity, creating packages with Eclipse Temurin JDK.
The site it seems be more complete.
I do not feel that the PMC should extend its reach and sign/test third
party distributions. As on NB we could provide a list, on parties, those
provides binary installers, though probably shall not favor any.
I would really move the Snap packages out of Apache, though I'm not sure
that FoN would be the place to move.
I recognize that this could lead to fragmentation of binaries. My view
on that has shifted during the recent years. I think that's not
necessary a bad thing. I could imagine a company or an university would
create a binary without ergonomics, releasing a pure Java or PHP IDEs,
solely PHP development or education purposes.
On 6/16/26 02:11, Neil C Smith wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 at 22:58, Matthias Bläsing
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am Sonntag, dem 07.06.2026 um 19:43 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
It’s just me, Pieter, and Timon. With the idea of working towards a
reproducible Apache NetBeans approved process for generating installers and
gathering funds and potentially enabling the providing of support. But all
things take time.
my take aways from the points raised are:
* FoN is a small group, that is willing to work with the PMC
* The JDK bundled with FoN build should be a JDK matching
OpenJDK, without additional modules
* The ASF release process is what must finish before publication of
the FoN build can happen.
* Requests from the PMC should be honoured, especially if it concerns
potentially distributing unreleased binaries
* FoN should not distribute NetBeans without JDK
This does not sound that undoable?!
Agreed, although this misses one other point which I consider at least
as important. Community installers should be built, tested and signed
off by a PMC member. That is fundamentally different from independent
third-party installers. They are produced and advertised in sync with
our release candidates and releases.
The point of migrating the installers from me (Codelerity) to FoAN,
when people wanted them to be the primary installers, was two-fold.
Remove Codelerity as the responsible entity (which I've been trying to
do for years and still hasn't happened) and allow opening up build
access to other PMC members so our linked installers are not tied to
one person. This was discussed in multiple threads here before.
*If* we decide or vote on an alternative to the PMC requirement, then
we need to know how the installers will be tested and signed off, how
syncing will work, and how we don't just land maintenance issues
upstream given installer issues affecting the IDE or packager cannot
then be resolved directly by the person doing the installer release.
If we don't change the criteria, then as I said earlier, the workload
for the PMC of running installers here or externally is really the
same. Ignoring the initial setup to bring them back or whether
non-JDK installers are actually desirable.
There are 66 PMC members who could run this process, two of whom are
involved directly in FoAN. There are 83 committers if we expanded the
pool of people to them. To quote you - this does not sound that
undoable?!
Best wishes,
Neil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:[email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail:[email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
