Hi,
FYI:
I asked the community whether translations are needed on twitter. The
results(90 votes) are the following:
Q. Do you need translations?
A1. Yes (Whole IDE) 41%
A2. Yes (Only platform) 10%
A3. No 49%
https://twitter.com/junichi_11/status/1109250341634084864
So it seems that the community
+1 (binding)
I checked signature and sha512 files, LICENSE, NOTICE and DISCLAIMER
files, of both source and binary release artifacts, as well as the
output from the rat check.
I only noticed one minor, not blocking, issue: the Copyright year in the
NOTICE files should be updated to include 2019.
Hi Mark,
Thanks a ton for the detailed reply, which makes a lot of sense to me.
Given that, I see no strong argument or reason to further hold up the
(re)quest to keep using org.netbeans for Maven GroupId.
Assuming of course all the technical and administrative hurdles with
Nexus and Sonatype ca
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, 17:50 Matthias Bläsing,
wrote:
> whether we release 4 times from master or 2 times IMHO does not matter
> much. What I tryed to say was:
>
> - release what is in master a point X
> - in the release branch only do minimal bugfixing
>
Yes, this is exactly what was originally d
Vote: +1
Source:
- checked signature
- verified sha512
- compared with the referenced git tag, differences are in unreleased
modules/expected
- build runs cleanly and results in a runnable IDE
Binary
- checked signature
- verified sha512
Thank you
Matthias
Am Donnerstag, den 21.03.2019, 00:41
Uff, quite a few questions. And really good ones! I try to play devils
advocate.
1) If the ASF owns the NetBeans mark and the netbeans.org domain it doesn't
make any legal difference if we call the groupId org.apache.netbeans or just
org.netbeans. Or even foo.netbeans.
2.) The referenced page
Hi,
There are a lot of branches have been already merged in the repo[1].
However, I'm not sure whether I can delete them.
So, could you please confirm your branches here[2], then delete
unnecessary branches?
[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans-website/branches/all
[2] https://github.
No, definitely not in parallel. They’d be sequential.
Gj
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 18:50, Matthias Bläsing
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 25.03.2019, 18:23 +0100 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> > I have been thinking differently about this ‘capacity’ item. In summary,
> I
> > think it will be easier
Hi,
Am Montag, den 25.03.2019, 18:23 +0100 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
> I have been thinking differently about this ‘capacity’ item. In summary, I
> think it will be easier to release 4 times per year than 2 times per year,
> precisely because of the capacity item. Dealing with smaller incremental
I have been thinking differently about this ‘capacity’ item. In summary, I
think it will be easier to release 4 times per year than 2 times per year,
precisely because of the capacity item. Dealing with smaller incremental
fixed date releases will I believe simplify rather than complexify things.
N
Hi Laszlo,
Am Sonntag, den 24.03.2019, 14:29 -0700 schrieb Laszlo Kishalmi:
>
> While we are doing the voting round, I think we need to think about
> NetBeans 11.1.
>
> Are we planning continue do cherry-picking into the release branch for
> 11.1 or do something more sophisticated? I mean 11.1
Thanks!
I had a little hope that the Readme is outdated ... :)
Christoph
Am 25.03.2019 um 15:12 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
Here is the README which tells you JDK 8 is needed to build NetBeans:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans
Gj
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:47 PM Christoph Theis wr
On 25/03/2019 12.59, Mark Struberg wrote:
We did have this discussion over a year ago with Greg Stein.
Back then the blocker was indeed the missing trademarks for 'NetBeans'.
With this resolved there is no legal problem anymore afaict.
Yes, the ASF by default prefers to use the org.apache.*
Here is the README which tells you JDK 8 is needed to build NetBeans:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans
Gj
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 2:47 PM Christoph Theis wrote:
> I could build Netbeans 11 vc4 within Netbeans successfully but I have
> some questions:
>
> Which JDK is required for th
I could build Netbeans 11 vc4 within Netbeans successfully but I have
some questions:
Which JDK is required for the build? My first try, though some time ago,
was from command line with JDK 11 and it failed. Now, building with
Netbeans, I used a fairly recent JDK 8 but I couldn't change the JDK
v
Hi,
I think the ticket is already done here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17127
Staging is possible on org.netbeans. for the maven artefacts for the IDE.
Newly created artefacts will go to their org.apache.netbeans
Like netbeans-parent, and the incoming utilities that are cod
We did have this discussion over a year ago with Greg Stein.
Back then the blocker was indeed the missing trademarks for 'NetBeans'.
With this resolved there is no legal problem anymore afaict.
Yes, the ASF by default prefers to use the org.apache.* groupIds. Mostly
because there is no exceptio
+1
Le dim. 24 mars 2019 à 22:14, djamel torche a
écrit :
> +1
>
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 at 15:46, Markus Kilås
> wrote:
>
> > On 3/21/19 8:41 AM, Laszlo Kishalmi wrote:
> > > We are voting on:
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans/incubating-11.
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:48 AM Ate Douma wrote:
> ...Unless one of the other mentors has a different view or is aware of more
> explicit guidelines in this, I suggest raising these questions at
> tradema...@apache.org instead
+1 and I suggest backing that discussion with a
https://issue
On 25/03/2019 05.55, Jaroslav Tulach wrote:
Thanks Ate. It is great to hear that using org.netbeans.* groupId is
legally OK and that it is not against any Apache policy.
I didn't draw that conclusion, please don't make it sound as if I did...
Instead, I wrote this:
Legally, I think it sh
20 matches
Mail list logo
