Hello,
I just don't recall. Did anyone (again, I would expect only the list
admin to know):
1.group names and the new addresses,
2. information about whether resubscription is required
I recall Geertjan sending some of that to gmane, but, to my
recollection, not all. Typically, to re-i
You were in the cc of the e-mail I sent to gmane.
Thanks,
Gj
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:58 AM, thufir wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I just don't recall. Did anyone (again, I would expect only the list
> admin to know):
>
>
> 1.group names and the new addresses,
>
> 2. information about whether resubsc
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> ...Please vote on releasing Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating)...
+1 on the release of this archive:
SHA1(incubating-netbeans-platform-9.0-alpha-source.zip)=
1189b293cecfd5236cf18df2c2bd0f6b414dab75
which is found under
https:
Hi all,
After being opened for over more than 72 hours, the vote for releasing
incubating-netbeans-platform-9.0-alpha [rc2] passed with 15 binding +1s
(which includes two Apache NetBeans mentors), 8 non-binding +1s and no 0 or
-1.
The link to vote thread is
*https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/
Many thanks Bertrand.
The vote result thread is here (just as I finished working on it, your +1
arrived, great timing!):
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/278b3bd85eaeec8718dee95f9b2b2c2c7656544fb5b504f6b8e2632c@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E
Thanks,
Gj
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Bert
On 21 Nov 2017 10:16, "Geertjan Wielenga"
wrote:
Hi all,
After being opened for over more than 72 hours, the vote for releasing
incubating-netbeans-platform-9.0-alpha [rc2] passed with 15 binding +1s
(which includes two Apache NetBeans mentors), 8 non-binding +1s and no 0 or
-1.
The link to vot
Right, thanks for that info as well -- and I really hope I got everything
correct in the IPMC vote thread, at least that nothing I did was bad enough
to result in -1s.
Gj
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2017 10:16, "Geertjan Wielenga" com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:01 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
> > ...Please vote on releasing Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating)...
>
> +1 on the release of this archive:
>
> SHA1(incubating-netbea
jlahoda opened a new pull request #285: Fixing some problems reported by
verify-libs-and-licenses
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/285
Most of the changes are intended to be editorial changes (renaming files to
adhere to conventions, normalizing texts, normalizing hea
Hi,
I assume we should work on getting the code into a state where we could
release a (beta) of (Java) IDE. When the platform/alpha is released, I'll
change the release job:
https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/incubator-netbeans-release/
to build the IDE (I'll let it build pla
A related question: maybe we should move to the “ide” cluster first and
forget about anything language-specific, including Java, until we have
released the generic non-language specific IDE features?
Or, as a counter argument, would that not be significant enough to justify
its own process?
>From
That is a very good idea, Gj!
From: Geertjan Wielenga
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:37
To: dev@netbeans.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IDE release
A related question: maybe we should move to the “ide” cluster first and
forget about anything language-specific, including Java, until we hav
>From a personal standpoint, I'd like to see a Java IDE as soon as
possible. I know there's still a lot of work to get there, but to
release a generic IDE, after a Platform release means we'll have done
2 releases (Ignoring the HTML releases that are happening) that still
isn't at the state that m
Very valid points. Very hard to argue against this perspective.
Though note that focusing on a neutral-IDE first doesn’t necessarily mean
slowing the process down. Just a different approach to the same end and
whether it would end up taking longer or not is not predetermined.
Gj
On Tue, 21 Nov 2
Is there a way that we could look at doing both?
i.e. In parallel do the generic IDE and look at how we do the Plugin
Manager/Portal.
Once those are completed we could branch off the Generic
Modules/Plugin Manager and then Release this branch.
>From there, we could work to get the Java and othe
Hi all,
I would assume it should be possible to build both - the JavaIDE and a
generic IDE at the same time.
If we can get the GenericStuff working faster than the JavaIDE - we could
decide to release that first.
Sven
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 10:18 PM, John McDonnell
wrote:
> Is there a way th
Hi all,
Jan just asked about a couple of problematic external libraries - one of
them is hibernate.
Looking at the rules I think we cannot distribute modules relying on
Hibernate with Apache NetBeans.
So I did a quick dive and found a major problem. At the moment there is a
special support modul
geertjanw closed pull request #284: Updating HTML/Java libraries to just
released version 1.5.1
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/284
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of proven
geertjanw commented on issue #284: Updating HTML/Java libraries to just
released version 1.5.1
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/284#issuecomment-346171770
Makes sense and merging.
This is an automated m
Hi Sven,
Thanks for looking at this. For completeness, I think (but IANAL) we could
have code here that depends on Hibernate (or other GPL libraries), but it
a) needs to be an optional component; b) we cannot distribute the GPL
library from Apache:
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#option
Hi,
I like the idea of an external GitHub that we can use to quickly fire
in some of the troublesome modules into to get around the license
issues like Camel did, and it seems there's already a GitHub
Organisation lying there in wait for modules ;)
Just did a quick search for usages of "hibernate
rtaneja1 opened a new pull request #286: changed back line endings to LF
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/286
Corrected line endings to Linux (LF) from Windows (CRLF) (introduced in PR
#107).
This is an
junichi11 commented on issue #286: changed back line endings to LF
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/286#issuecomment-346257445
@rtaneja1 PR #264 already has this changes. So this PR can be closed. I'll
merge #264 later.
---
rtaneja1 closed pull request #286: changed back line endings to LF
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/286
This is a PR merged from a forked repository.
As GitHub hides the original diff on merge, it is displayed below for
the sake of provenance:
As this is a foreign pu
rtaneja1 commented on issue #286: changed back line endings to LF
URL:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/286#issuecomment-346263784
Closing as change already part of PR #264.
This is an automated message from
25 matches
Mail list logo
