date:20180122

Hi,

> It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed 
> knowledge things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are 
> licensed. The review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount 
> time if all of the jar contained their license (and notice) files.

This is the relevant bit:
"For additional packages, they MUST be located in the distribution format's 
customary location for licensing materials, such as the META-INF directory of 
Java "jar" files.”

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi,

> I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
> these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
> the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
> NetBeans build system produces.

It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed knowledge 
things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are licensed. The 
review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount time if all of the 
jar contained their license (and notice) files.

> ./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
>> - CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE
>> 
> 
> Hm, this should be under Apache 2.0 - this is built from "o.openidex.util"
> from the source bundle. Is there something we need to fix so it does not
> appear to be under CDDL?

Well the jar doesn’t contain any license but a google search of the jar name 
indicated it was CDDL I could be wrong.

> Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?

They may well do but TLP don’t always get things 100% right (the lucerne NOTICE 
file for instance) so IMO we should try and work what is the right hing to do 
here.

>> - are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?
> 
> I don't know, it has been released this way.

If that the case "Copyright 2017 NetBeans” is probably not correct it should be 
copyright ASF right? Or are the jars not generated from source in the Apache 
Netbeans project?

> Ah, I guess the naming may be confusing here - I believe these are standard
> NetBeans artifacts, for certain core stuff NetBeans is using "org.openide"
> package (and module name). Built from openide.compat and openide.dialogs in
> the source bundle, respectively. Is there something we can do to reduce
> confusion?

Change the package name perhaps? Not that it needs to be done right away and 
they may be good reasons for not changing it if other projects rely on it.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#licensing-documentation


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Thanks a lot for a thorough review! Will take some time to go through that
and fix, but a few questions:

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of
> missed something. A number of issues here are due to upstream projects
> putting too much in NOTICE or not including a NOTICE file in the jar :-(
> But it also looked like you missing a couple of things from LICENSE as well
> and have a few thing listed under the wrong license. I think you may need
> someone to go though that list and double check.
>
> Netbeans jars are missing LICENSE and NOTICE file in META_INF. Note that
> this may vary on a jar by jar basis.
>

I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
NetBeans build system produces.

[snip]

./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
> - CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE
>

Hm, this should be under Apache 2.0 - this is built from "o.openidex.util"
from the source bundle. Is there something we need to fix so it does not
appear to be under CDDL?

[snip]

> platform/modules/ext/org.eclipse.osgi_3.9.1.v20140110-1610.jar
> - I’m not sure if the OSGi license is compatible with the Apache one. It’s
> not listed in Category A/B/X you may need to ask on legal discuss. It may
> be under EPL but not 100% sure.
>

Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?

[snip]

> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot-fx.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot-script.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-boot.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-geo.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html-sound.jar
> ./platform/modules/net-java-html.jar
> - have NOTICE files that would effect the NOTICE file
> - a couple have DISCLAIMER is that’s right?
>

It is part of the NetBeans incubator project, so I believe it is right.

> - are the copyright lines in NOTICE correct here?
>

I don't know, it has been released this way.

 [snip]

> ./platform/modules/org-openide-compat.jar
> ./platform/modules/org-openide-dialogs.jar
> (and a few others similarly named)
> - are missing from LICENSE
>

Ah, I guess the naming may be confusing here - I believe these are standard
NetBeans artifacts, for certain core stuff NetBeans is using "org.openide"
package (and module name). Built from openide.compat and openide.dialogs in
the source bundle, respectively. Is there something we can do to reduce
confusion?

Thanks,
Jan

>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi,

I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of missed 
something. A number of issues here are due to upstream projects putting too 
much in NOTICE or not including a NOTICE file in the jar :-( But it also looked 
like you missing a couple of things from LICENSE as well and have a few thing 
listed under the wrong license. I think you may need someone to go though that 
list and double check.

Netbeans jars are missing LICENSE and NOTICE file in META_INF. Note that this 
may vary on a jar by jar basis.

./extide/ant/etc/ant-bootstrap.jar (and other ant jars)
- see LICENSE at it mentions SAX2 and that may be missing from LICENSE

./harness/antlib/bindex-2.2.jar
- has odd NOTICE that may impact NOTICE file. Looking at it I think the notice 
bit should be included and the rest may affect LICENSE.

./ide/modules/com-googlecode-javaewah-JavaEWAH.jar
- has no notice but copyright has been incorrectly add to license you may want 
to include that in NOTICE as if it was in a NOTICE file or do nothing.

./ide/modules/com-jcraft-jzlib.jar
- missing from LICENSE

./ide/modules/ext/commons-compress-1.8.1.jar
- I see the public domain “notice” has been copied from the notice file. IMO 
this should be in notice but in license but is an upstream issue.

./ide/modules/ext/commons-net-3.6.jar
- probably no need to include this in NOTICE as you’re done

./ide/modules/ext/freemarker-2.3.19.jar
- no need for line (Visigoth Software) in NOTICE having it in license is enough 
IMO

./ide/modules/ext/ini4j-0.5.1.jar
- missing form NOTICE

./ide/modules/ext/jaxb/jaxb-xjc-2.2.5-2.jar
- contains org.kohsuke.rngom MIT licensed missing from LICENSE

./ide/modules/ext/jaxb/jaxb1-impl-2.2.5-2.jar
- also contains 3rd party code not mentioned in LICENSE

./ide/modules/ext/lucene-core-3.5.0.jar
- thesis where the bulk of you NOTICE info come from and why I thought 
something was up. Again it’s an upstream issue just about all of this 
information should be in LICENSE not NOTICE, but as the upstream project NOTICE 
file has this issue including it all is valid.

./ide/modules/ext/resolver-1.2.jar
- missing from NOTICE file

./ide/modules/ext/servlet-2.2.jar 
- this seems to be CDDL not Apache 1.1? Not 100% sure here.

./ide/modules/ext/smackx.jar 
- includes BSD licensed JZlib missing from LICENSE

./ide/modules/ext/webserver.jar
- I assume this is tomcat? if so it has a NOTICE file and should be included in 
NOTICE. Pity there no NOTICE file in the jar.

./ide/modules/ext/winp-1.14-patched.jar
- LICENSE is missing this MIT licensed 

./ide/modules/ext/xerces-2.8.0.jar
- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file

./ide/modules/org-apache-commons-codec.jar
- has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file

./ide/modules/org-apache-commons-lang.jar
- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file

./ide/modules/org-openidex-util.jar
- CDDL licensed missing in LICENSE

java/maven/boot/plexus-classworlds-2.5.2.jar 
- is not Apache licensed

./java/maven/lib/aether-api-1.0.2.v20150114.jar  
./java/maven/lib/aether-connector-basic-1.0.2.v20150114.jar
./java/maven/lib/aether-impl-1.0.2.v20150114.jar
./java/maven/lib/aether-spi-1.0.2.v20150114.jar
./java/maven/lib/aether-transport-wagon-1.0.2.v20150114.jar
./java/maven/lib/aether-util-1.0.2.v20150114.jar
- are EPL license not Apache licensed

./java/maven/lib/commons-lang3-3.4.jar
- probably has NOTICE that would effect NOTICE file

java/maven/lib/jsoup-1.7.2.jar 
- is MIT licensed not Apache licensed

java/maven/lib/jsr250-api-1.0.jar
- is CDDL licensed not Apache licensed

./java/maven/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.inject-0.3.2.jar
./java/maven/lib/org.eclipse.sisu.plexus-0.3.2.jar
- are EPL licensed not Apache licensed

./java/maven/lib/plexus-cipher-1.7.jar
- has a NOTICE file that would effect NOTICE

./java/maven/lib/slf4j-simple-1.7.5.jar
./java/maven/lib/slf4j-api-1.7.5.jar
- are MIT licensed not Apache licensed

./java/modules/ext/cglib-2.2.jar
- has an incorrect NOTICE file (copy/paste error I assume) and if fixed may 
effect the NOTICE file

java/modules/ext/jaxws22/FastInfoset.jar  
- is under an Apache license not a CDDL one

./java/modules/ext/jaxws22/stax2-api.jar
- is under a BSD license not a CDDL one

./java/modules/ext/jaxws22/woodstox-core-asl.jar
- is under an Apache 2.0 license not a CDDL one and has a NOTICE file that 
effect NOTICE (although none of it’s content mean anything IMO)

./java/modules/ext/maven/indexer-core-6.0-SNAPSHOT-patched.jar
- is may not be possible to release with a snapshot jar I not sure re that. It 
as ASF project and the code has not been released by it’s PMC.

./java/modules/ext/maven/jdom-1.0.jar
- is BSD Style rather than Apache licensed

./java/modules/ext/spring-3.0/spring-context-3.2.7.RELEASE.jar
./java/modules/ext/spring-3.0/spring-context-support-3.2.7.RELEASE.jar
(and other spring jars)
- has a NOTICE file that would effect the NOTICE file

./platform/modules/ext/org.apache.felix.main-4.2.1.jar
- has a NOTICE file that would

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
> > far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
> > (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is
> mostly
> > based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle, like Ant
> or
> > Lucene.)
>
> Only stuff that is actually bundled needs to be mentioned not what you use
> or depend on. I’ve not checked but do you bundle ant or just use it?
>

We bundle ant (under netbeans/extide/ant in the binary distro).

>
> I can take a look and come back with some recommendation if you want.
>

I think that would be most useful, thanks!

Jan


>
> Thanks,
> Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi,

> One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
> far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
> (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is mostly
> based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle, like Ant or
> Lucene.)

Only stuff that is actually bundled needs to be mentioned not what you use or 
depend on. I’ve not checked but do you bundle ant or just use it?

I can take a look and come back with some recommendation if you want.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

2018-01-22 Thread Luciano Resende

Please consider this VOTE canceled while we work on the issues raised on
this vote thread.

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Luciano Resende 
wrote:

> Please vote to approve the release of Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating
> (RC3).
>
> The podling dev vote thread:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@toree.incubator.apache.org/msg01673.html
>
> And the result:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@toree.incubator.apache.org/msg01677.html
>
> Tag: v0.2.0-incubating-rc3 (32bbefa121aafd8713afab81516917234d72d690)
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/tree/v0.2.0-incubating-rc3
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.2.0
> -incubating-rc3/
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1010
>
> The vote is open for at least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>



-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Hi,

> Thanks for checking Justin, Toree internally needs to interpret Scala code
> and be able to add external jars as dependencies and these three jars are
> mainly used for testing purposes and they are also cleared labeled as a
> test and placed as test resources. Having said that, this seems to have
> been fixed in the previous release branch [1] without being merged to
> master (unfortunately) and also based on the discussions from the previous
> release [2] I was wondering if would be ok to have this released approved
> with this issue (incubator releases are a step towards perfection) and I
> would get these all resolved for the next release.

I had forgotten that conversation, given it was brought up before and not fixed 
in this newer RC, I would still be inclined to vote -1. But lets see what other 
IPMC members or your mentors vote.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Hi,

> I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using
> them in tests. That would require much more time and maintenance than just
> including the binaries. There's nothing special about them besides that
> they have classes that can be loaded to verify the classpath addition
> worked. I think this is similar enough to having binary test files included
> in file format projects that it should not be a reason to fail the release.

There are no exceptions for including compiled code in a source release. 

Yes you can include other binary formats like gifs and pngs but that’s not 
related to testing.

Thanks,
Justin


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

2018-01-22 Thread Luciano Resende

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) as there is compiled source in the release
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE is good
> - NOTICE needs year updating
> - Unexpected jars in source release.
> - can compile from source
>
> The 3 jars are:
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/ScalaTestJar.jar
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/TestJar.jar
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/TestJar2.jar
>
> Could these be compiled as part of the build process? It currently doesn’t
> look like the source code for those files are included at all but I assume
> you know where they come from?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>

Thanks for checking Justin, Toree internally needs to interpret Scala code
and be able to add external jars as dependencies and these three jars are
mainly used for testing purposes and they are also cleared labeled as a
test and placed as test resources. Having said that, this seems to have
been fixed in the previous release branch [1] without being merged to
master (unfortunately) and also based on the discussions from the previous
release [2] I was wondering if would be ok to have this released approved
with this issue (incubator releases are a step towards perfection) and I
would get these all resolved for the next release.

[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/f0bb5d238dc10376db3935c15e007ea46076e548
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg58321.html
-- 
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

2018-01-22 Thread Ryan Blue

Justin,

A bit more context on those Jars: these were created to test the ability to
add jars at runtime to the Scala interpreter, and they were contributed to
the project as tests.

I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using
them in tests. That would require much more time and maintenance than just
including the binaries. There's nothing special about them besides that
they have classes that can be loaded to verify the classpath addition
worked. I think this is similar enough to having binary test files included
in file format projects that it should not be a reason to fail the release.

rb

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) as there is compiled source in the release
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE is good
> - NOTICE needs year updating
> - Unexpected jars in source release.
> - can compile from source
>
> The 3 jars are:
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/ScalaTestJar.jar
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/TestJar.jar
>   toree-0.2.0-incubating-src/scala-interpreter/src/test/
> resources/TestJar2.jar
>
> Could these be compiled as part of the build process? It currently doesn’t
> look like the source code for those files are included at all but I assume
> you know where they come from?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Ryan Blue
Software Engineer
Netflix

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
>> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
>> seriously.
>>
>> It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
>> be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
>> data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
>> since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
>> that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
>> we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
>> discussed, not ignored.
>>
>
> The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things
> that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still
> acceptable for inclusion.  Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do
> it for:
>
> - build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a
> build from the source release
> - Files that are licensed as other Cat A
> - Files that can't have a header for technical reasons
>
> It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat
> exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally
> excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed.
>
> I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
> list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
> minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:
>
> - Remove the binary zip files from the source release
> - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta+rc3

Gj


> - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
> license
> - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> other locations
>
>
>
>>
>> Gj
>>
>> On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
>> > exclusions
>> > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
>> > > members evaluating a release.
>> >
>> > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
>> > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I
>> have
>> > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose
>> to
>> > ignore it.
>> >
>> > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
>> > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
>> > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
>> > on
>> > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>> >
>> > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
>> > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
>> > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
>> >
>> > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
>> > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
>> >
>> > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
>> > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
>> > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the
>> only
>> > -1.That’s how Apache works.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

2018-01-22 Thread Hank Beatty




On 01/22/2018 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:

On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty  wrote:

The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache
Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).

More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/

The release artifacts can be downloaded here:

https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/trafficcontrol/2.1.0-incubating/


It would be better to point to

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html

which has links for KEYS etc.


I have updated our notes to reflect this change. Future ANNOUNCE emails
will have this update.



However the MD5 and SHA512 links are broken (page uses the wrong
extensions), and the page still refers to 2.0.0


The release notes can be found here:

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html


But these relate to 2.0.0 as noted above


The web page doesn't seem to have updated yet. Do you know how long
it usually takes for that to happen once a commit has been completed?

The new page has the corrections that you mention.




Thanks!
The Apache Traffic Control Team


Apache Traffic Control is an effort undergoing Incubation at The Apache
Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Incubator. Incubation is
required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates
that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have
stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While
incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or
stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully
endorsed by the ASF.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

2018-01-22 Thread sebb

On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty  wrote:
> The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache
> Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).
>
> More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/
>
> The release artifacts can be downloaded here:
>
> https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/trafficcontrol/2.1.0-incubating/

It would be better to point to

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html

which has links for KEYS etc.

However the MD5 and SHA512 links are broken (page uses the wrong
extensions), and the page still refers to 2.0.0

> The release notes can be found here:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html

But these relate to 2.0.0 as noted above

> Thanks!
> The Apache Traffic Control Team
>
>
> Apache Traffic Control is an effort undergoing Incubation at The Apache
> Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Incubator. Incubation is
> required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates
> that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have
> stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While
> incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or
> stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully
> endorsed by the ASF.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

2018-01-22 Thread Hank Beatty


The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache 
Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).

More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/

The release artifacts can be downloaded here:

https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/trafficcontrol/2.1.0-incubating/

The release notes can be found here:

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/index.html

Thanks!
The Apache Traffic Control Team


Apache Traffic Control is an effort undergoing Incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the 
Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the 
infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful 
ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it 
does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jaroslav Tulach 
wrote:

> I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
> aside...
>
> > ...
> > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
> for
>
> > which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."
> The
> > problem looking at this statement vs the file actually in source:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
> > provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
> >
> > It includes a license header "Sun Public License".  This line in the
> > document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
> > header.
>
>
> Obviously a mistake. Here is a fix:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/381
>
>
> > Ultimately, at this point you can't remove the header since it's
> > already been declared and was not included in the relicensing of Netbeans
> > to Apache License.
> >
>
> I don't understand why I should not be allowed to fix omitted ancient
> license that hasn't been fixed yet?
>

Simply my interpretation of the fact the header wasn't fixed.  If it was an
oversight, that's fine.


>
> Best regards and keep an eye on what we do! Thanks for your findings.
> -jt
>

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

2018-01-22 Thread Jaroslav Tulach

I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
aside...

> ...
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
for

> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."  The
> problem looking at this statement vs the file actually in source:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
> provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
>
> It includes a license header "Sun Public License".  This line in the
> document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
> header.


Obviously a mistake. Here is a fix:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/381


> Ultimately, at this point you can't remove the header since it's
> already been declared and was not included in the relicensing of Netbeans
> to Apache License.
>

I don't understand why I should not be allowed to fix omitted ancient
license that hasn't been fixed yet?

Best regards and keep an eye on what we do! Thanks for your findings.
-jt

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:03 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament  wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > > Apache
> > > > license
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are
> talking
> > > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ,
> but
> > > they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were
> > part
> > > of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are
> > not
> > > under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README,
> but
> > > if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
> > > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > >
> > > to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.
> > >
> > >
> > I've seen you post this link several times now in this thread.  I
> > personally have no idea what you'd like to get updated on this page, and
> > the IPMC cannot help you get that updated, only the legal committee can.
> >
> > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
> for
> > which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."
>
>
> Snip snip...
>
>
> >
> > Or am I miss understanding your points around changing this document?
>
>
>
> It’s not about that document (which simply needs to be relicensed to Apache
> like all other files from the donation, simply slipped through that process
> somehow) but about those in Jan’s mail, i.e., the test data and pseudo code
> in test/*/data folders.
>
>
As best as I can tell, only the file I mentioned and its pair
(DiffTestFile1b.txt) are the ones with the wrong license on them.  The
other files were not raised by Justin as having bad headers, since we have
already documented that test data does not require the headers for the
reasons listed on that page.

A similar problem exists with the file "testMoveClass.pass" which ends up
including multiple license headers.  I'm actually OK with that file, since
its clear that its trying to test these scenarios.

John


> Gj
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived
> > from
> > > > other locations
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >Jan
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/
> > hints/AddCast1.java
> > > [2]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> > modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
> > > [3]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> > modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
> > > [4]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> > netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> > intVarName.pass
> > > [5]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> > netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
> > > [6]
> > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> > netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> > CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Gj
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean <
> jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > > > > exclusions
> > > > > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to
> > > IPMC
> > > > > > > members evaluating a release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> > > > things.
> > > > > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so
> > perhaps
> > > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course
> > > choose
> > > > > to
> > > > > > ignore it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they
> > cannot
> > > > > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > > > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread
> primarily
> > > > based
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in
> > > later
> > > > > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF
> > licensing
> > > or
> > > > > > release

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC3

2018-01-22 Thread Hank Beatty

Thanks to all who voted!

The release has PASSED with the following IPMC votes:

+1 Phil Sorber (binding)
+1 Justin Mclean (binding)
+1 Leif Hedstrom (binding)

I will proceed to publish the release and send ANNOUNCE.

On behalf of the Apache Traffic Control podling, thank you!

Regards,
Hank Beatty hbea...@apache.org

On 01/20/2018 11:40 AM, sebb wrote:

AFAIK the normal way to announce this is to send a message with the
subject starting:

[RESULT][VOTE] ...

Also the votes should be tallied.

See for example:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/95689e3c01a601a6c5ff8873785d8728c2eb2f95b040a9fbcb159d7f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E

On 19 January 2018 at 13:47, Hank Beatty wrote:

Hello,

It would appear RC3 has passed the IPMC vote. I'll do the release today.

Regards,
Hank

On 2018-01-17 17:01, Phil Sorber wrote:

+1 (binding). After having fought with docker for a bit I was able to
build
packages. Sig and hashes check out as well. We should work on getting all
our GPG keys signed by each other next summit, but that is not a show
stopper in my opinion.

Thanks!

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:45 AM Leif Hedstrom wrote:

+1 (binding). Tested the build, RPMs successfully built, and double
checked the RAT report.

Cheers

%u2014 Leif

On Jan 10, 2018, at 18:04, Justin Mclean

wrote:

Hi,

+1 (binding)

I checked:
- incubating in name
- hashes and signatures good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE good and NOTICE OK (see below)
- no unexpected binary files
- All ALv2 source files have ASF headers

For the NOTICE don%u2019t forget to update the year to be the current
one and

there%u2019s no need to list information about the fonts inside it.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> > they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were
> part
> > of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are
> not
> > under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README, but
> > if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.
> >
> >
> I've seen you post this link several times now in this thread.  I
> personally have no idea what you'd like to get updated on this page, and
> the IPMC cannot help you get that updated, only the legal committee can.
>
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data for
> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."  The
> problem looking at this statement vs the file actually in source:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
> provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
>
> It includes a license header "Sun Public License".  This line in the
>

I agree this is bad. (I think it was not found by the re-licensing tools
because the header is broken.)

document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
> header.  Ultimately, at this point you can't remove the header since it's
> already been declared and was not included in the relicensing of Netbeans
> to Apache License.
>

Not sure why is that.

There appear to be 2 (3) files with this header, used by a single testcase,
I am pretty sure we can solve that.


>
> Or am I miss understanding your points around changing this document?
>

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. If there's no other problem with test data,
we can trivially fix this one, and there won't be any problem.

Should there be any other problem with the test data, please let us know.

Thanks for finding the SPL problem,
Jan


>
>
> >
> > > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived
> from
> > > other locations
> > >
> >
> > I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >Jan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/
> hints/AddCast1.java
> > [2]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
> > [3]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
> > [4]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> intVarName.pass
> > [5]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
> > [6]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Gj
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > > > exclusions
> > > > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to
> > IPMC
> > > > > > members evaluating a release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> > > things.
> > > > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so
> perhaps
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course
> > choose
> > > > to
> > > > > ignore it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they
> cannot
> > > > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in
> > later
> > > > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF
> licensing
> > or
> > > > > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament  wrote:

> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> > they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were
> part
> > of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are
> not
> > under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README, but
> > if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.
> >
> >
> I've seen you post this link several times now in this thread.  I
> personally have no idea what you'd like to get updated on this page, and
> the IPMC cannot help you get that updated, only the legal committee can.
>
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data for
> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."


Snip snip...


>
> Or am I miss understanding your points around changing this document?



It’s not about that document (which simply needs to be relicensed to Apache
like all other files from the donation, simply slipped through that process
somehow) but about those in Jan’s mail, i.e., the test data and pseudo code
in test/*/data folders.

Gj



>
>
> >
> > > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived
> from
> > > other locations
> > >
> >
> > I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >Jan
> >
> > [1]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/
> hints/AddCast1.java
> > [2]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
> > [3]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/
> modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
> > [4]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> intVarName.pass
> > [5]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
> > [6]
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/
> netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/
> CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Gj
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > > > exclusions
> > > > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to
> > IPMC
> > > > > > members evaluating a release.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> > > things.
> > > > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so
> perhaps
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course
> > choose
> > > > to
> > > > > ignore it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they
> cannot
> > > > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily
> > > based
> > > > > on
> > > > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in
> > later
> > > > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF
> licensing
> > or
> > > > > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> > > > > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your
> > > mentors
> > > > > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be
> > totally
> > > > > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is
> > the
> > > > only
> > > > > -1.That’s how Apache works.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > > 
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

2018-01-22 Thread Ate Douma




On 2018-01-22 12:36, John D. Ament wrote:


I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:

- Remove the binary zip files from the source release


Looking at the files called process_start_.zip (items
[26...29] listed by Justin), I *think* their content was (once)
created/compiled from source, present in that same folder?

Might it be feasible to have those build/compiled at build time?
Possibly not (its C code, so maybe not easily done).
If not, are there alternatives?


- Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
- Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
license
- Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
other locations

ENTs? (unclear to me what type of files are you referring to)

Concerning XSDs or DTDs under EPL/EDL etc, as Justin already noted,
I think it might be just fine to keep them included, just require
appropriate labeling as described under

  https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b

  "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF
   product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is
   unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being
   specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source
   is also permitted."

The follow-up from Justin concerning possible restrictions on commercial
use with regards to http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=317 however got me
worried.
*That* would impact not just Netbeans but a whole range of other ASF
projects as well!

Ate







Gj

On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean 
wrote:


Hi,


I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat

exclusions

together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release.


Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I

have

some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose

to

ignore it.


Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot

simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted

with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based

on

the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.


Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.


I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our

mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.

That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the

only

-1.That’s how Apache works.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org








-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

>
>
> > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> Apache
> > license
> >
>
> This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were part
> of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are not
> under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README, but
> if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.
>
>
I've seen you post this link several times now in this thread.  I
personally have no idea what you'd like to get updated on this page, and
the IPMC cannot help you get that updated, only the legal committee can.

I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data for
which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail."  The
problem looking at this statement vs the file actually in source:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt

It includes a license header "Sun Public License".  This line in the
document is saying to exclude the header, but you're including a SPL
header.  Ultimately, at this point you can't remove the header since it's
already been declared and was not included in the relicensing of Netbeans
to Apache License.

Or am I miss understanding your points around changing this document?


>
> > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> > other locations
> >
>
> I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.
>
> Thanks,
>Jan
>
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
> [3]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
> [4]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/intVarName.pass
> [5]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
> [6]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass
>
>
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > > exclusions
> > > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to
> IPMC
> > > > > members evaluating a release.
> > > >
> > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> > things.
> > > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps
> I
> > > have
> > > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course
> choose
> > > to
> > > > ignore it.
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
> > > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> > > >
> > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in
> later
> > > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing
> or
> > > > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> > > >
> > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> > > > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
> > > >
> > > > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your
> > mentors
> > > > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be
> totally
> > > > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is
> the
> > > only
> > > > -1.That’s how Apache works.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Theodorou 
wrote:

>
>
> Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
>
>> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
>> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
>> members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
>> exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
>> with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
>> the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>>
>
> sorry for jumping in here, I only know half what those files are about, so
> I might be wrong. It seemed to me those are java files, that are test
> files. If you make an IDE for a language, you will want tests, that
> basically consist of code and are test data. And since they are test data,
> they have been excluded. Since they are also code, this produces an edge
> case conflict.
>
> Now in Groovy we have also test data as code, but our tests have the test
> data either embedded and sue them directly from in-memory or will write
> them to disk or even produce them. Those tests then of course have the
> right header and do not need to be excluded. Is that no way forward for
> NetBeans?
>

We have such tests as well, of course. But some tests use test data that is
in separate files in the repository, and it would seem to me to be a wasted
effort to convert thousands of existing tests to a different approach
without a good technical reason.

Jan


>
> bye Jochen
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
> > taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
> > seriously.
> >
> > It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
> > be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
> > data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be
> licensed
> > since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines
> specify
> > that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely
> why
> > we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
> > discussed, not ignored.
> >
>
> The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things
> that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still
> acceptable for inclusion.  Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do
> it for:
>
> - build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a
> build from the source release
> - Files that are licensed as other Cat A
> - Files that can't have a header for technical reasons
>
> It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat
> exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally
> excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed.
>
> I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
> list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
> minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:
>

My personal opinion (which may be minor) is that there's no specific reason
to rush this release. To me, the main point of this release was to
determine if everything is OK, and if not, what exactly is not. So that
when the actual (non-beta) release comes up, we minimize surprises.


> - Remove the binary zip files from the source release
>

I don't think there are doubts about that.


> - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
>

One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
(Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is mostly
based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle, like Ant or
Lucene.)


> - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
> license
>

This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
they actually are all the same: test data), then I believe these were part
of the initial donation and I don't have a reason to believe these are not
under the Apache license. Of course we could list them in the README, but
if that's a requirement, I'd suggest to fix:
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

to include that requirement to avoid further confusion.


> - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> other locations
>

I've sent an e-mail to dev@netbeans asking those to be resolved.

Thanks,
   Jan

[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/org/netbeans/test/java/hints/AddCast1.java
[2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1-hints.pass
[3]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.hints/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/hints/errors/ErrorHintsTest/testAddCastHint1.pass
[4]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/intVarName.pass
[5]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/empty.pass
[6]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/java.completion/test/unit/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/java/completion/JavaCompletionTaskTest/1.8/CreateConstructorNonDefaultConstructor.pass


> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > > exclusions
> > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > > > members evaluating a release.
> > >
> > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide
> things.
> > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I
> > have
> > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose
> > to
> > > ignore it.
> > >
> > >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:51 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> > ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> Apache
> > license
> > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> > other locations...
>
> If NetBeans moves their RAT exclusions to a single file which has just
> this and is clearly commented, with just a mention of that file in the
> README, would that work for you?
>
> I think having a specific file for RAT exclusions would be good anyway
> as it makes it easier to see how they evolve.
>

I think that's fine.  Somewhere that makes it clear to a consumer "this
area is the murky area," since we already require disclaimers etc in the
source release.  Consolidating the overall rat exclusions is useful as
well, most projects seem to have named this "rat-exclusions.txt", not sure
if that's a convention or not.


>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

2018-01-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

Hi John,

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
> license
> - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> other locations...

If NetBeans moves their RAT exclusions to a single file which has just
this and is clearly commented, with just a mention of that file in the
README, would that work for you?

I think having a specific file for RAT exclusions would be good anyway
as it makes it easier to see how they evolve.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

2018-01-22 Thread Jochen Theodorou




Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:

I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.


sorry for jumping in here, I only know half what those files are about, 
so I might be wrong. It seemed to me those are java files, that are test 
files. If you make an IDE for a language, you will want tests, that 
basically consist of code and are test data. And since they are test 
data, they have been excluded. Since they are also code, this produces 
an edge case conflict.


Now in Groovy we have also test data as code, but our tests have the 
test data either embedded and sue them directly from in-memory or will 
write them to disk or even produce them. Those tests then of course have 
the right header and do not need to be excluded. Is that no way forward 
for NetBeans?


bye Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
> seriously.
>
> It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
> be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
> data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
> since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
> that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
> we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
> discussed, not ignored.
>

The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things
that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still
acceptable for inclusion.  Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do
it for:

- build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a
build from the source release
- Files that are licensed as other Cat A
- Files that can't have a header for technical reasons

It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat
exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally
excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed.

I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well..  I want confirm that the
list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog.  To me, the
minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:

- Remove the binary zip files from the source release
- Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere
- Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
license
- Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
other locations



>
> Gj
>
> On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> > exclusions
> > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > > members evaluating a release.
> >
> > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
> > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I
> have
> > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose
> to
> > ignore it.
> >
> > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
> > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> > on
> > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> >
> > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
> > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
> > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
> >
> > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
> >
> > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
> > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
> > fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the
> only
> > -1.That’s how Apache works.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of
> whether
> > RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> > can't release even.
>
> There is some cases where this is allowed. I know of at least one project
> who got approval from VP legal to make a release on the condition that they
> would point it out in a very prominent way and fix it in a later release
> before graduation.
>


We already ask podlings to include a disclaimer.  Was this a podling? Were
they asked to include an additional disclaimer?


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

2018-01-22 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> ...Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
> their take on your review too

My take is, as you suggest, that people from NetBeans convert Justin's
concerns into jira tickets so that things can be specifically reviewed
and fixed.

Given the size of this release I'm not surprised that we might have
missed something, and having to do a few release candidates is not
very surprising either - it's a big thing!

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
seriously.

It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test
data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed
since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify
that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why
we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be
discussed, not ignored.

Gj

On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> exclusions
> > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > members evaluating a release.
>
> Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things.
> I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I have
> some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose to
> ignore it.
>
> > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot
> simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> on
> > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>
> Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later
> releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or
> release policy. I suggest you try are fix those.
>
> > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our
> mentors to advise on their perspective on this too.
>
> That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors
> can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally
> fine if you got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the only
> -1.That’s how Apache works.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi,

> No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
> RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> can't release even.

There is some cases where this is allowed. I know of at least one project who 
got approval from VP legal to make a release on the condition that they would 
point it out in a very prominent way and fix it in a later release before 
graduation.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi,

> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> members evaluating a release.

Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things. I’ve 
reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I have some 
advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose to ignore it.

> Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot simply be 
> ignored and we cannot be confronted
> with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
> the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.

Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later releases 
and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or release policy. 
I suggest you try are fix those.

> I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors to 
> advise on their perspective on this too.

That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors can 
vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally fine if you 
got  3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the only -1.That’s how 
Apache works.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

I appreciate your response and it is very clear that I am not making that
argument at all. And no it does not suck at all to do due diligence — that
is whh we are here: we want a product with healthy IP. And we appreciate
Justin’s thorough IP review, a lot. However, I would like it to be affirmed
that rat exclusions should be discussed and not simply ignored. Otherwise,
we should simply not do rat exclusions at all.

Gj

On Monday, January 22, 2018, Ted Dunning  wrote:

> Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the
> past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early
> releases from a new podling.
>
> The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have
> to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and
> for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for
> the purpose of hiding serious problems.
>
> No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
> RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history
> outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to
> have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before
> release.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat
> exclusions
> > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> > members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
> > exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based
> on
> > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
> >
> > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
> > to advise on their perspective on this too.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that
> > are
> > > > not
> > > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of
> course,
> > > > what
> > > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting
> point
> > > > would
> > > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > > > running
> > > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and
> > can
> > > > > start discussions from the same basis.
> > > >
> > > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this
> > case
> > > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file
> I
> > > > can’t see it in the source release.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The exclusions start here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
> > >
> > > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
> > >
> > > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests
> to
> > > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers
> > in
> > > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so
> if
> > > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the
> > FAQ
> > > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> > > discussions for others in the future.
> > >
> > > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE?
> For
> > > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> > > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >Jan
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing
> > licenses,
> > > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code)
> so
> > my
> > > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote
> is
> > > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than
> > -1s
> > > > then it’s a release.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > > 
> -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

2018-01-22 Thread Ted Dunning

Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the
past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early
releases from a new podling.

The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have
to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and
for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for
the purpose of hiding serious problems.

No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history
outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to
have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before
release.



On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
> exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
> the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>
> I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
> to advise on their perspective on this too.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <
> jus...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that
> are
> > > not
> > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> > > what
> > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> > > would
> > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > > running
> > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and
> can
> > > > start discussions from the same basis.
> > >
> > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this
> case
> > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> > > can’t see it in the source release.
> > >
> >
> > The exclusions start here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
> >
> > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
> >
> > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to
> > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers
> in
> > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if
> > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the
> FAQ
> > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> > discussions for others in the future.
> >
> > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For
> > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >Jan
> >
> >
> > >
> > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing
> licenses,
> > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so
> my
> > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than
> -1s
> > > then it’s a release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2