Re: Revert Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917 (was: Re: Apache NetBeans 11.0 has been Branched!)
Hi Anton, thank you for taking this on and getting it resolved. It is appreciated. Greetings Matthias Am Freitag, den 22.02.2019, 11:33 +0100 schrieb Anton Epple: > Hi Guys, > > I'm sorry for the long silence, I simply completely missed the whole > communication due to my Email settings. Jarda has contacted me and > I'll try to catchup this weekend. > > --Toni > > > Am 22.02.19, 09:56 schrieb "Jaroslav Tulach" < > jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com>: > > Thanks for the mailing list heads-up! I talked to Toni and > explained that > 20 days silence in an issue resolution is undesirable. Hopefully > a way to > avoid that in the future has been agreed upon. > > PR-1143 seems to resolve the licensing problem, so I've just > merged it. > -jt > > st 20. 2. 2019 v 4:46 odesílatel Jaroslav Tulach < > jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> > napsal: > > > -1 (e.g. veto) to the revert proposal. > > > > Dne středa 20. února 2019 1:03:36 CET, Matthias Bläsing > napsal(a): > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 20:01 +0100 schrieb Matthias > Bläsing: > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 10:44 -0800 schrieb Laszlo > Kishalmi: > > > > > BTW, as we are not really going to release this build and > that would > > be > > > > > true for the next one. > > > > > Shall we play the release dance and upload everything to > the staging > > > > > area and create vote threads? > > > > > > > > we can skip this. We have a release blocker right in the > LICENSE file: > > > > > > > > [JavaFX binaries are packaged with Apache NetBeans] > > > > > > > > @Toni, could you please have a look at the comments in the > JavaFX PR: > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/917 > > > > > > > > and the corresponding issue: > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1995 > > > > > > I intent to revert the changes that were committed as the PR > titled > > > "Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation > #917". > > > > > > The primary reason: the PR messes with the build process > > > > OK, as far as I can see build is slightly complicated. That is > not a > > reason > > for revert. > > > > > and let it > > > look like GPLv2-CP runtime libraries are pulled into the > build. > > > > "look like" isn't reason for revert. > > > > > Secondary reasons: > > > > > > - the local maven repository is hardcoded to $HOME/.m2 > > > > OK, feel free to propose a fix. Not a revert. > > > > > > > => Anyone using a windows installation with roaming profiles > and a not > > > so fast network will know, that having .m2 at the default > location is a > > > bad idea > > > > > > - the m2 url handler will not handle non Maven-Central URLs > > > > As far as I can tell, that is not a bug, but feature. > > > > > => There are other popular maven repositories (bintray), that > might be > > > relevant for us. > > > > "might be" isn't reason for revert. > > > > Best regards. > > -jt > > > > > > > While looking into this, I noticed, that the generation of > license file > > > needs rereview, as the per-nbm files also contain per-file > licenses for > > > files not included in that nbm. Maybe both problems can be > tackled > > > togehter. > > > > > > > > > Greetings > > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > > > > --- > -- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, > visit: > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: Revert Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917 (was: Re: Apache NetBeans 11.0 has been Branched!)
Hi Guys, I'm sorry for the long silence, I simply completely missed the whole communication due to my Email settings. Jarda has contacted me and I'll try to catchup this weekend. --Toni Am 22.02.19, 09:56 schrieb "Jaroslav Tulach" : Thanks for the mailing list heads-up! I talked to Toni and explained that 20 days silence in an issue resolution is undesirable. Hopefully a way to avoid that in the future has been agreed upon. PR-1143 seems to resolve the licensing problem, so I've just merged it. -jt st 20. 2. 2019 v 4:46 odesílatel Jaroslav Tulach napsal: > -1 (e.g. veto) to the revert proposal. > > Dne středa 20. února 2019 1:03:36 CET, Matthias Bläsing napsal(a): > > Hello all, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 20:01 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 10:44 -0800 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi: > > > > BTW, as we are not really going to release this build and that would > be > > > > true for the next one. > > > > Shall we play the release dance and upload everything to the staging > > > > area and create vote threads? > > > > > > we can skip this. We have a release blocker right in the LICENSE file: > > > > > > [JavaFX binaries are packaged with Apache NetBeans] > > > > > > @Toni, could you please have a look at the comments in the JavaFX PR: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/917 > > > > > > and the corresponding issue: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1995 > > > > I intent to revert the changes that were committed as the PR titled > > "Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917". > > > > The primary reason: the PR messes with the build process > > OK, as far as I can see build is slightly complicated. That is not a > reason > for revert. > > > and let it > > look like GPLv2-CP runtime libraries are pulled into the build. > > "look like" isn't reason for revert. > > > Secondary reasons: > > > > - the local maven repository is hardcoded to $HOME/.m2 > > OK, feel free to propose a fix. Not a revert. > > > > => Anyone using a windows installation with roaming profiles and a not > > so fast network will know, that having .m2 at the default location is a > > bad idea > > > > - the m2 url handler will not handle non Maven-Central URLs > > As far as I can tell, that is not a bug, but feature. > > > => There are other popular maven repositories (bintray), that might be > > relevant for us. > > "might be" isn't reason for revert. > > Best regards. > -jt > > > > While looking into this, I noticed, that the generation of license file > > needs rereview, as the per-nbm files also contain per-file licenses for > > files not included in that nbm. Maybe both problems can be tackled > > togehter. > > > > > > Greetings > > > > Matthias > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Re: Revert Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917 (was: Re: Apache NetBeans 11.0 has been Branched!)
Thanks for the mailing list heads-up! I talked to Toni and explained that 20 days silence in an issue resolution is undesirable. Hopefully a way to avoid that in the future has been agreed upon. PR-1143 seems to resolve the licensing problem, so I've just merged it. -jt st 20. 2. 2019 v 4:46 odesílatel Jaroslav Tulach napsal: > -1 (e.g. veto) to the revert proposal. > > Dne středa 20. února 2019 1:03:36 CET, Matthias Bläsing napsal(a): > > Hello all, > > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 20:01 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 10:44 -0800 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi: > > > > BTW, as we are not really going to release this build and that would > be > > > > true for the next one. > > > > Shall we play the release dance and upload everything to the staging > > > > area and create vote threads? > > > > > > we can skip this. We have a release blocker right in the LICENSE file: > > > > > > [JavaFX binaries are packaged with Apache NetBeans] > > > > > > @Toni, could you please have a look at the comments in the JavaFX PR: > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/917 > > > > > > and the corresponding issue: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1995 > > > > I intent to revert the changes that were committed as the PR titled > > "Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917". > > > > The primary reason: the PR messes with the build process > > OK, as far as I can see build is slightly complicated. That is not a > reason > for revert. > > > and let it > > look like GPLv2-CP runtime libraries are pulled into the build. > > "look like" isn't reason for revert. > > > Secondary reasons: > > > > - the local maven repository is hardcoded to $HOME/.m2 > > OK, feel free to propose a fix. Not a revert. > > > > => Anyone using a windows installation with roaming profiles and a not > > so fast network will know, that having .m2 at the default location is a > > bad idea > > > > - the m2 url handler will not handle non Maven-Central URLs > > As far as I can tell, that is not a bug, but feature. > > > => There are other popular maven repositories (bintray), that might be > > relevant for us. > > "might be" isn't reason for revert. > > Best regards. > -jt > > > > While looking into this, I noticed, that the generation of license file > > needs rereview, as the per-nbm files also contain per-file licenses for > > files not included in that nbm. Maybe both problems can be tackled > > togehter. > > > > > > Greetings > > > > Matthias > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > >
Re: Revert Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917 (was: Re: Apache NetBeans 11.0 has been Branched!)
-1 (e.g. veto) to the revert proposal. Dne středa 20. února 2019 1:03:36 CET, Matthias Bläsing napsal(a): > Hello all, > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 20:01 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing: > > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 10:44 -0800 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi: > > > BTW, as we are not really going to release this build and that would be > > > true for the next one. > > > Shall we play the release dance and upload everything to the staging > > > area and create vote threads? > > > > we can skip this. We have a release blocker right in the LICENSE file: > > > > [JavaFX binaries are packaged with Apache NetBeans] > > > > @Toni, could you please have a look at the comments in the JavaFX PR: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/917 > > > > and the corresponding issue: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1995 > > I intent to revert the changes that were committed as the PR titled > "Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917". > > The primary reason: the PR messes with the build process OK, as far as I can see build is slightly complicated. That is not a reason for revert. > and let it > look like GPLv2-CP runtime libraries are pulled into the build. "look like" isn't reason for revert. > Secondary reasons: > > - the local maven repository is hardcoded to $HOME/.m2 OK, feel free to propose a fix. Not a revert. > => Anyone using a windows installation with roaming profiles and a not > so fast network will know, that having .m2 at the default location is a > bad idea > > - the m2 url handler will not handle non Maven-Central URLs As far as I can tell, that is not a bug, but feature. > => There are other popular maven repositories (bintray), that might be > relevant for us. "might be" isn't reason for revert. Best regards. -jt > While looking into this, I noticed, that the generation of license file > needs rereview, as the per-nbm files also contain per-file licenses for > files not included in that nbm. Maybe both problems can be tackled > togehter. > > > Greetings > > Matthias > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
Revert Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917 (was: Re: Apache NetBeans 11.0 has been Branched!)
Hello all, Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 20:01 +0100 schrieb Matthias Bläsing: > Am Mittwoch, den 13.02.2019, 10:44 -0800 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi: > > BTW, as we are not really going to release this build and that would be > > true for the next one. > > Shall we play the release dance and upload everything to the staging > > area and create vote threads? > > we can skip this. We have a release blocker right in the LICENSE file: > > [JavaFX binaries are packaged with Apache NetBeans] > > @Toni, could you please have a look at the comments in the JavaFX PR: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/917 > > and the corresponding issue: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-1995 > I intent to revert the changes that were committed as the PR titled "Fragments for libs.javafx with JavaFX 11 implementation #917". The primary reason: the PR messes with the build process and let it look like GPLv2-CP runtime libraries are pulled into the build. Secondary reasons: - the local maven repository is hardcoded to $HOME/.m2 => Anyone using a windows installation with roaming profiles and a not so fast network will know, that having .m2 at the default location is a bad idea - the m2 url handler will not handle non Maven-Central URLs => There are other popular maven repositories (bintray), that might be relevant for us. While looking into this, I noticed, that the generation of license file needs rereview, as the per-nbm files also contain per-file licenses for files not included in that nbm. Maybe both problems can be tackled togehter. Greetings Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.incubator.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
