Christian, the bitness of cleaner.exe makes absolutely no difference
to your aim of enforcing 64Bit. I do not plan to change anything
buildwise, only the C code, meaning it will still be a 32 bit
executable. In fact I dread if I would have to look into the build
system in Apache NetBeans of this
> @Emilian Bold: Where would I document? Please point me in right
direction. Thanks.
I see these pages https://netbeans.apache.org/wiki/index.asciidoc are
on GitHub here
https://github.com/apache/netbeans-website/tree/master/netbeans.apache.org/src/content/wiki
So you could make a PR against
Lars,
Is the plan to continue to keep the cleaner as a 32bit exe?
$ file cleaner.exe
cleaner.exe: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows
The nlw.exe executable was built as a 64bit exe, which used to be 32bit in
previous NetBeans releases. This would prevent using the NBI to create a
I've filed a Jira ticket : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-3094
with the aim to change the C code for the cleaner.exe to be able to
delete read-only files too. It is rather trivial. I've assigned it to
myself.
@Emilian Bold: Where would I document? Please point me in right
Oliver, it is just a question of changing the permissions on the files
before zipping the JRE.
I'm using a modified version (JRE instead of JDK) of
jMonkeyEngine's script to create the JRE unzipsfx files.
It's a question of adding the following to
Hi,
I remember on such problems also with Netbeans 8.2. It had todo with access
rights. I am
interested in if you can figure it out.
best regards
Oliver
> Is anyone packaging the JRE in a RCP installer using Netbeans 11.1
> following these instructions?
>
Lars, those notes do deserve a wiki page indeed.
--emi
joi, 12 sept. 2019, 20:45 Lars Bruun-Hansen a
scris:
> Hi Christian
>
> I once wrote some notes on how the cleaner works. (yes, they are
> probably worthy of a Wiki page, but currently the only exist here). It
> was written about 5 years
Hi Lars,
Thanks for the information. Your guess was correct, those files had the
read-only attribute set. Unsetting those attributes allowed the clearer to
remove
the files and top-level directory.
Thanks,
Christian
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:45 PM Lars Bruun-Hansen
wrote:
> Hi Christian
>
> I
Hi Brad,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.09.2019, 13:46 -0600 schrieb Brad Walker:
> Let's say that I've cleaned up all references to a deprecated method.
>
> Now I want to remove the deprecated method since no one is using it.
>
> Don't I have to update the interface definition? And if so, how does one go
Fair enough, whatever works. :-)
Gj
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 19:34, Matthias Bläsing
wrote:
> Hi Geertjan,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2019, 18:54 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> > Amount of data is a question of downloading the bits you want and then
> > seeing how large that is.
>
> don't
Hi Christian
I once wrote some notes on how the cleaner works. (yes, they are
probably worthy of a Wiki page, but currently the only exist here). It
was written about 5 years ago, but I doubt it has changed. The notes
are below and I think they are worth the read because I'm guessing
they
Hi Geertjan,
Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2019, 18:54 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> Amount of data is a question of downloading the bits you want and then
> seeing how large that is.
don't take this wrong, but that approach is the worst way to determine
the amount of data. Someone with access
Amount of data is a question of downloading the bits you want and then
seeing how large that is.
I don’t see anyone asking about anything other than 8.2 so far.
Gj
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 17:19, Matthias Bläsing
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2019, 17:12 +0200 schrieb Geertjan
It seems I've skimmed that part. Wasn't expecting it that early. Good
news! Thank you!
On 9/11/19 9:33 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
See the initial post here about the 4th donation re the dark look and feel.
Gj
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 05:13, Laszlo Kishalmi
wrote:
Hi Geertjan,
I know it
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2019, 17:12 +0200 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> Sure, everything. But indeed let's start with what we need most, i.e., 8.2
> related artefacts.
>
> You're the one who set up the OSUOSL storage, would be happy to help, but
> if you suggest some kind of structure and a
Sure, everything. But indeed let's start with what we need most, i.e., 8.2
related artefacts.
You're the one who set up the OSUOSL storage, would be happy to help, but
if you suggest some kind of structure and a process with steps for getting
artefacts up there, I'd be happy to do it or be
I would move *everything* public facing that's on bits.netbeans.org.
No need to purge anything if it's under an open-source license and
OSUOSL can redistribute it.
Older builds, older Maven repositories, maybe even Javadocs?
On top of my list would be NetBeans 8.2 and the 8.2 maven repo.
--emi
Sure, let's do it, but for me the question is what precisely we want to
move to OSUOSL storage, if we can have a list or start putting one
together, we'll have a clear starting point.
Gj
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 4:53 PM Emilian Bold wrote:
> Doesn't sound silly at all. I was also very concerned
Doesn't sound silly at all. I was also very concerned about such
matters. Now that we have the OSUOSL storage we have a place to save
historical artifacts, it's just a matter of somebody (from the PMC, I
guess) doing it.
Besides the bits, you will find that bugzill is quite referenced in
commits,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:46 PM Jean-Marc Borer wrote:
> Sure, I understand all those points, but does anyone know how long
> bits.netbeans.org will still be online? Last week, there was an outage
An outage of bits.netbeans.org?
Or do you specifically mean http://bits.netbeans.org/maven2?
Which artefacts are we talking about?
Gj
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:23 PM Jean-Marc Borer wrote:
> Hmm ok.
>
> Does it sound silly that I am concerned about the disappearance of the
> legacy artefacts?
>
> What is you opinion and shall we invest any effort to save those artefacts?
>
> JMB
>
>
Hi Tim,
If file access is improved that may also improve indexing and by
consequence symbol finding or refactoring. Did you try such operations to
check the difference in speed?
Cheers,
JMB
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 8:47 AM Tim Boudreau wrote:
> I've been playing with some tweaks to masterfs -
Hmm ok.
Does it sound silly that I am concerned about the disappearance of the
legacy artefacts?
What is you opinion and shall we invest any effort to save those artefacts?
JMB
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:59 AM Emilian Bold
wrote:
> I doubt it will be live a few more years. Another year max
Huge recognition for Apache NetBeans
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:59 AM Kai Uwe Pel wrote:
> Wow, that's amazing news!
> Thanks for the update.
>
> Regards,
> Kai
>
> On 9/11/2019 11:11 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I’d like to highlight the fact that one of our PMC members and
Ruby support shall be kept.
>
> > community-soa
> >
>
> Misguided junk to sell to managers who don't understand technology, so they
> can torture their employees with it.
>
That is so true! Send it to /dev/null, but: I am still obliged use SoapUI
on a regular base. This tool is so a nightmare
Sure, I understand all those points, but does anyone know how long
bits.netbeans.org will still be online? Last week, there was an outage and,
of course, exactly when I was testing our new artifactory. That is why I
started wondering.
If the bits.netbeans.org will remain live during a few years,
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, 09:48 Eric Barboni, wrote:
> We could not move the artefacts to central because of the licence and the
> groupid that are now for Apache NetBeans.
>
I'm not sure this is correct. At least, I remember us getting some advice
about pre-Apache release artefacts that might
bits.netbeans.org could easily be migrated to netbeans.osuosl.org
Not sure if there are any plans about that, etc.
--emi
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:48 AM Eric Barboni wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I was also stressed ;D.
> We could not move the artefacts to central because of the licence and the
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
