Editing NetBeans module projects in dev builds

Hello, I am trying to open NetBeans module projects in a dev build of Apache NetBeans. However, when I select the folder containing the NetBeans project, I see "". Also, the icon of the project folder is the regular folder icon instead of the blue puzzle piece icon. What do I need to do to edit

Contributors & license headers

Hi, AFAIU all code submitted by contributors must include the standard license headers at [1]. So, for instance, headers like [2] are wrong. Is this so? Thanks, Antonio [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html [2]

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Neil C Smith wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, 19:11 Jan Lahoda, wrote: > > > My understanding of the ASF process is that any release (any file > released > > under ASF) is subject of the same scrutiny. I.e. if we would

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, 20:24 Geertjan Wielenga, < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > OK, the most important thing right now is that we put a source release > together, without the JARs, and name that rc2 and then start a new > vote thread on that. > > Do we agree/disagree? > Yep,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

OK, the most important thing right now is that we put a source release together, without the JARs, and name that rc2 and then start a new vote thread on that. Do we agree/disagree? Thanks, Gj On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Neil C Smith wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Neil C Smith wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 13:39 Jan Lahoda wrote: > > > I belive we could do convenience binaries for subsets, but not source > > releases for subsets. > > > > I wondered if this was related when I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 13:39 Jan Lahoda wrote: > I belive we could do convenience binaries for subsets, but not source > releases for subsets. > I wondered if this was related when I asked, but I'm confused by this. If the code in the repository is capable of building source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

I belive we could do convenience binaries for subsets, but not source releases for subsets. Jan 13. ledna 2018 14:21:23 SEČ, Geertjan Wielenga napsal: >Right, that would be the main objection I think. > >And we need to be able to create distributions from

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

Right, that would be the main objection I think. And we need to be able to create distributions from subsets of the repository. Gj On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Jan Lahoda wrote: > I am not quite opposed to it (packing all git content), but that would mean > we couldn't

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

I am not quite opposed to it (packing all git content), but that would mean we couldn't reasonably source-release a subset of the repository. E.g. just the platform. Jan 13. ledna 2018 12:47:02 SEČ, Antonio napsal: >Aha, so you mean downloading [1]? > >Look ma! No hands!

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 12:26 Matthias Bläsing wrote: > I raise the same objection as always when github is moved to the core of a > process. A release should be doable without services outside our control. > :-) So, use the git CLI command you used earlier? All it is

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 10:51 Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > OK, here it is: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/361 Huh, what's with that description?! Guess we need good guidelines on PR titles and descriptions? Not to mention rejecting any that

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

Hey, Am 13. Januar 2018 12:58:46 MEZ schrieb Geertjan Wielenga : >Seems great to me too, not sure what the objections could/would be. We >do need to put that here though: >https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/ i.e., >that's the staging

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 11:58 Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Seems great to me too, not sure what the objections could/would be. > I guess it depends on what the ant task is doing?! eg. with the excluded modules, if all the code in the repo is Apache licensed I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

Seems great to me too, not sure what the objections could/would be. We do need to put that here though: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/ i.e., that's the staging location for releases. Gj On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Antonio wrote: > Aha, so

Re: beta delivery and beyond WAS: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

Hi, On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 09:02 Eduard Karel de Jong wrote: > yet I like to support NB as it moves into open source, by > sharing some of my experiences with open organisations and democratic > decisions in standardisation and in (city) politics. > Interesting read. It

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

Aha, so you mean downloading [1]? Look ma! No hands! That's clever! [1] curl -o netbeans-9.0-beta-rc1.zip https://codeload.github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/zip/9.0-beta-rc1 On 13/01/18 12:39, Neil C Smith wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 10:17 Geertjan Wielenga <

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 at 10:17 Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I think this is the most urgent task -- we need a new source ZIP > (that's how artifacts are made available for review), > To clarify if the point in brackets was in reply to my question(?), I meant why

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

On 13/01/18 11:47, Gili T. wrote: I guess I'll be the odd man out: the bigger the project the more relevant cosmetic fixes are in my opinion. Why? Because in the 10+ years I've used NetBean, bug fixes were more important to me than new features. Cosmetic fixes tend to reduce the bug count at

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

I don't think anyone is pretending anything. :-) The point is simply we can't do everything at the same time -- but since you care about these kinds of issues, you're very welcome to review them, there's nothing stopping you. I agree we do need to document our desired coding style and need to set

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

It seems to me that maybe you need to document your desired coding style and perhaps ask people to break PRs into smaller pieces but beyond that I see nothing wrong with someone reducing the number of compiler warnings in a PR and nothing else. Code hygine is a necessary part of software

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

OK, here it is: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/361 Looking forward to your review, Gj On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Gili T. wrote: > I guess I'll be the odd man out: the bigger the project the more relevant > cosmetic fixes are in my opinion.

Re: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

I guess I'll be the odd man out: the bigger the project the more relevant cosmetic fixes are in my opinion. Why? Because in the 10+ years I've used NetBean, bug fixes were more important to me than new features. Cosmetic fixes tend to reduce the bug count at the cost of new features and I'm

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

I think this is the most urgent task -- we need a new source ZIP (that's how artifacts are made available for review), without the JARs, and I think we should make that the rc2 release. Once we have that -- and I think right now only Jan Lahoda can create this since he knows what needs to be

beta delivery and beyond WAS: Users first (was Re: Pull requests need to be reviewed)

I can't agree more with Antonio and Geertjan: as a community we need to keep our eyes focussed on the goal: delivering a superior IDE to developers. And doing so in a timely fashion. My earlier suggestions about voting to move forward with a beta release intended to support keeping that

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc1

Hi, On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, 21:05 Matthias Bläsing, wrote: > However the git tag is not identical with the contents of the source > zip. That there is contents in the repository that is not in the source > zip would be ok from my POV (hibernate support module for