Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > There are also the [3rd party binaries used during NetBeans build](http:// > hg.netbeans.org/binaries/) - most of them available from Maven central. I > already [created a

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Wade Chandler wrote: > ...more later when we get to an incubator... +1 -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sep 28, 2016 5:55 AM, "Sven Reimers" wrote: > > > 2. Use Maven repository as storahe backend for the plugin portal, so that > only the metadata is hosted at the portal not the module binaries.. > I think the terminology here is key. A "storage backend" for plugins.n.o.

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Hi, if I understood Jaroslav correct he is proposing two changes 1. Download 3rd party binaries needed to build NetBeans from a maven repository (maven central, jcenter or if you behinf corporate firewalls a synced self hosted repo using nexus or artifactory) 2. Use Maven repository as storahe

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: >... > One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven > repository > more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is > operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to

Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

This would be brilliant. Make it happen! Gj On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > On sobota 24. září 2016 12:17:21 CEST, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the > > go-ahead for it,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On úterý 27. září 2016 11:27:29 CEST, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga > > wrote: > > ...Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to > > host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement --

Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On sobota 24. září 2016 12:17:21 CEST, Daniel Gruno wrote: > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving the > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to > host this. Hi. One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma wrote: If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK. > Bottom line -- we've discussed a lot already and we'll be discussing a lot more during incubation. The NetBeans community is large and diverse. Some might have less of an

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I'm very OK with starting the vote. I'd recommend leaving this to the Apache community as much as possible, everyone from NetBeans is extremely positive about all this so let's be reticent in this specific process, and enable the Apache community to work through all this. That would be my advise

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be > useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are, > etc etc... Ok we can add that info in concise

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are, etc etc. From the NetBeans side of things, we're a large community and lots of us are following all this and maybe someone can point us Apache

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 Ate On 2016-09-27 14:23, Mark Struberg wrote: +1 LieGrue, strub On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament wrote: Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

+1 LieGrue, strub > On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > >> Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a >> vote?..

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a > vote?.. I'm +1 for starting the vote. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Sooo does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a vote? John On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:06 AM Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a > graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. > Agreed, with both my IPMC and InfraAdmin "hats" on my head. I see these issues having time

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to > host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think > we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:35 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a > graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. +1 -Bertrand - To unsubscribe,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a graduation goal, not a start incubation goal. John On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:28 PM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > > won't

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle > infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me > it does not look that way. Indeed, this is not an urgent issue from the point of view of

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

PS: GitHub may be an option too, though right now we're working with two or three different organizations, to see which would be the best home for plugins.netbeans.org. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Yup. For sure. Together with

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: [...] b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF. won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven. However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out to the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am comfortable

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to >> proceed with the vote... > ...The Office of the President

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley wrote: >> ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that >> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs.. > > Are these

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley wrote: > ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that > first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs.. Are these estimates sufficient for our infra team to give us their ok to proceed with the NetBeans

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

gt; (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind) > Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever > or only growing larger. The preliminary NetBeans cost findings cover monetary costs only. Staff time is not covered. I am not sure what "in-kind" means,

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the > issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling. > > Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra > infra burden

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Greg wrote: >Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries. If you are going to cite AOo as an example, then http://templates.services.openoffice.org/ provides an example of how easily things spin out of control, when third parties take primary responsibility for distribution of

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Geertjan Wielenga wrote on 9/25/16 6:05 PM: > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > >> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working >> with VP Brand. > > > Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be > existing

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

nutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt Ross -Original Message- From: m...@wadechandler.com [mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of Wade Chandler Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 8:04 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCU

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: >... > scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and > this will not be new for Apache in any way. > Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working > with VP Brand. Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" wrote: > > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

I never said comparative use. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Inc

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sep 25, 2016 01:18, "Justin Mclean" wrote: > > Hi, > > > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example. > > A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that. The asf has a service - lists.apache.org -which does exactly

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

5, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > > > > >> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is > >> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs. > > > > > > I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlie

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

ead with a vote before you get an ack, is >> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs. > > > I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans > cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in > Oracle. In

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit : >... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of > one development tool over another. > > I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context So am I.

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is > that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs. I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans cost fi

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff >> notes are as follows... > > Thanks very much for this - it is useful

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be > solid justification that a move to ASF will help the community grow. This is the first I've heard of this. My one data point is

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Hi Daniel, On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff > notes are as follows... Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that for any "big" podling that comes

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

of user numbers not being a good indicator is remains. > -Original Message- > From: Ross Gardler > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache > NetBeans Incubator P

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

r.apache.org > Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans > Incubator Proposal) > > Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the > check and should be worried about these things. > > Still, the number of Java develop

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

.txt Ross > -Original Message- > From: m...@wadechandler.com [mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of > Wade Chandler > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 8:04 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache &

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold wrote: >... > alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have > a policy against ads, etc, etc) > We never run ads. Ever. Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

om: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunn...@gmail.com');>> > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general@incubator.apache.org');> > > Sub

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

dler > > > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache > NetBeans Incubator Proposal) >

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Hi Wade, first of all, don't worry too much at this point, having discussions and trying to grasp the scope and what we get into is very normal at this point. more comments inline... On 25.09.2016 05:03, Wade Chandler wrote: [...] Do no other Apache projects have plugins or distribution

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

request > to the board). > > Ross > > --- > Twitter: @rgardler > > > From: Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans co

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Hi, > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example. A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that. Thanks, Justin 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html -

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very different under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal) Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and incubator (who cause the problem). Certainly the budge

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and incubator (who cause the problem). Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved. I will work with the board to determine the best

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow! Chris On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" wrote: Hi folks, I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

<a...@shanecurcuru.org<mailto:a...@shanecurcuru.org>> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 5:35 AM Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings To: <general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>> Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacin

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling. Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for 3-4 years and then we'll have

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Hi folks, I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure, it's ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff notes are as follows: - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins) - 8-13 machines/VMS are required - Ballpark hardware costs