[VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
Hi all,

The Apache NetBeans community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2.

We now kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote
on this incubator release candidate.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) constitutes all the modules
currently in the Apache NetBeans Git repo, which together provide the
NetBeans Platform (i.e., the underlying application framework), which
was released as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Alpha (incubating), as well as all
the
modules that provide the Java SE-related features of Apache NetBeans.
In short, Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) is a full IDE for Java
SE development.

Just like the Alpha release, the Beta release is focused specifically
on IP clearance. With Beta, everything in Apache NetBeans Git complies
with Apache IP clearance requirements:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Apache+NetBeans+9.0+Beta

Changes between rc1 and rc2 -- binaries wrongly included in source zip
have been removed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-276

How to try out the Beta release:

1. Download the artifact to be voted on and unzip it.
2. Build it using the README provided by the artifact.
3. Look in nbbuild/netbeans for the NetBeans installation created by
the build process.
4. Run the NetBeans executable and (if you're running on JDK 8) you'll
be prompted to install nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing
terms, and (if you're running on JDK 9), you'll be able to use javac
directly from JDK 9 and, optionally, you'll be prompted to install
nb-javac, after agreeing to its licensing terms.

If the above succeeds, i.e., Apache NetBeans installs and starts up,
you will have a Java SE development environment that complies with
Apache IP requirements.

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/796200c149232ba2da722c6d4b1310307708e09b2afa77eb90ecaebc@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) vote result thread:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ff699b382e5498ca41e56315c9b97de83b3a625140b0ba451f828cfb@%3Cdev.netbeans.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc., as well as a
convenience binary, can be found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc2/

The tag to be voted upon is 9.0-beta-rc2:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/tree/9.0-beta-rc2

The release hash is:

808faea759d76b6d0e27512fbf36e9e22d5d4c65

...which is found at:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/netbeans/incubating-netbeans-java/incubating-9.0-beta-rc2/incubating-netbeans-java-9.0-beta-source.zip.sha1

KEYS file available:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/netbeans/KEYS

During the PPMC vote, an item was identified, though did not prevent +1 votes:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NETBEANS-283

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, run and
test.

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta
(incubating) rc2:

The vote will be open for 72 hours.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

Thanks,

Geertjan
on behalf of Apache NetBeans PPMC

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean
Hi,

It -1 (binding) as there may be GPL inclusions in the release and Category B software in a source release, the source release LICENSE is missing several things, and the binary LICENSE and NOTICE contains too much and the source release contains compiled  source, may also be some images that you don’t have permission to use or distribute. Some of these may turn out to be minor issues but they need to be clarified.

Please ask your mentors to help on fixing up the LICENSE and/or read this [1]. Some time ago I also made this which may help. [2][3] I suggest you also run rat on the release to find some of these issues I found.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- disclaimer exists
- LICENSE has a number of issues (see below)
- NOTICE is OK
- There’s a number of file that are missing ASF headers, including 700 odd java files, and a large number  number of xml, dtd, wdsl, xsd and files containing code ending with .pass.
- unexpected binary files in the source release [26][27][28][29] (these contain compiled code)

Several (not dual license) GPL license files exist in the source release. Does this software include GPL or depend on any GPL licensed software? For instance [4][19]

There a large number of icons in the release do know the ip provenance of them and how they are licensed?

There also seems to be a number of stock photos [30][31][32] in the release. How are they licensed? Do you have permission to use or distribute them?

LICENSE is missing licenses for:
- CDDL licensed this [5] and about 100 others inside SFS-Editors-Folder.zip
- These CDDL/GPL licensed files [7][8][10] and a number of files like this one is [9]
- this patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL header [6]
- these EPL licensed files [11][12][13][14][15][16]
- these files under the sun public license [17][18]
- this MIT licensed file [20] (which also includes MIT licensed normalize.css)
- this patch seems to be removing a MIT license header [21]
- this IOS file [22] (and about a dozen other files)
- how is this file licensed? [23]
- this WC3 license file [24] and a dozen others

However CDDL, EPL and the sun public license are in Category B [25] and not allowed is source form in a release.

I glanced at the binary LICENSE and NOTICE of the binary and I think there's too much information in there.
- There is no need to repeat the Apache license text several times
- Only 3rd party software that is bundled in the source release needs to be mention in LICENSE and NOTICE.  Is everything mentioned really bundled?
- NOTICE seems to contain too much information
- For long licenses it best to use a pointer the the full text of the license rather than include the full text

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
2. https://vimeo.com/171210141
3. https://github.com/justinmclean/ApacheWombat
4. nbbuild/licenses/LGPL-2.1
5. test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/editor/settings/storage/compatibility/p1/SFS-Editors-Folder.zip/Editors/AnnotationTypes/Breakpoint.xml
6. css.lib/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/lib/antlrv4.patch
7. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/orm_1_0.xsd
8. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/persistence_1_0.xsd
9. refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
10. websvc.saas.api/src/org/netbeans/modules/websvc/saas/model/wadl20061109.xsd
11. xml.jaxb/src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/jaxb/resources/eclipselink_oxm_2_3.xsd
12. maven.coverage/src/org/netbeans/modules/maven/coverage/jacoco-1.0.dtd
13. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/orm_2_0.xsd
14. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/orm_2_1.xsd
15. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/persistence_2_0.xsd
16. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/persistence_2_1.xsd
17. diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
18. diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/provider/DiffTestFile1b.txt
19 apisupport.installer/src/org/netbeans/modules/apisupport/installer/resources/licenses/GPL
20. css.model/test/unit/data/testfiles/bootstrap.css
21. html.validation/external/validator.patch
22. html.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/html/editor/resources/DTDs/4_0/HTMLlat1.ent
23. welcome/src/org/netbeans/modules/welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd
24. src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/catalog/resources/Transform.xsd
25. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
26. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/process_start-linux-intel.zip
27. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/process_start-mac-intel.zip
28. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/process_start-solaris-intel.zip
29. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/process_start-solaris-sparc.zip
30. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/DisplayShelf/src/displayshelf/animalX.jpg
31. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/Fireworks/src/Fireworks/sf.jpg
32. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/PuzzlePieces/src/puzzlepieces/PuzzlePieces-picture.jpg





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Jan Lahoda
Hi Justing,

Thanks for the comments. I guess it will take some time for us to fully go
through the list and resolve it. I have a few comments/questions inline if
I may.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:49 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It -1 (binding) as there may be GPL inclusions in the release and Category
> B software in a source release, the source release LICENSE is missing
> several things, and the binary LICENSE and NOTICE contains too much and the
> source release contains compiled  source, may also be some images that you
> don’t have permission to use or distribute. Some of these may turn out to
> be minor issues but they need to be clarified.
>
> Please ask your mentors to help on fixing up the LICENSE and/or read this
> [1]. Some time ago I also made this which may help. [2][3] I suggest you
> also run rat on the release to find some of these issues I found.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE has a number of issues (see below)
> - NOTICE is OK
> - There’s a number of file that are missing ASF headers, including 700 odd
> java files, and a large number  number of xml, dtd, wdsl, xsd and files
> containing code ending with .pass.
>

Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other
things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple
or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case
the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the only
system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to
handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files that
would cause tests fail may have no license header:
https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions


> - unexpected binary files in the source release [26][27][28][29] (these
> contain compiled code)
>
> Several (not dual license) GPL license files exist in the source release.
> Does this software include GPL or depend on any GPL licensed software? For
> instance [4][19]
>

There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a
dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release files.


>
> There a large number of icons in the release do know the ip provenance of
> them and how they are licensed?
>
> There also seems to be a number of stock photos [30][31][32] in the
> release. How are they licensed? Do you have permission to use or distribute
> them?
>
> LICENSE is missing licenses for:
> - CDDL licensed this [5] and about 100 others inside SFS-Editors-Folder.zip
> - These CDDL/GPL licensed files [7][8][10] and a number of files like this
> one is [9]
> - this patch file seems to be removing a GPL/CDDL header [6]
>
- these EPL licensed files [11][12][13][14][15][16]
> - these files under the sun public license [17][18]
> - this MIT licensed file [20] (which also includes MIT licensed
> normalize.css)
> - this patch seems to be removing a MIT license header [21]
>

As I read the patch, it is removing whole files including their headers.
But maybe I missed some occurrence?


> - this IOS file [22] (and about a dozen other files)
> - how is this file licensed? [23]
> - this WC3 license file [24] and a dozen others
>
> However CDDL, EPL and the sun public license are in Category B [25] and
> not allowed is source form in a release.
>
> I glanced at the binary LICENSE and NOTICE of the binary and I think
> there's too much information in there.
> - There is no need to repeat the Apache license text several times
> - Only 3rd party software that is bundled in the source release needs to
> be mention in LICENSE and NOTICE.  Is everything mentioned really bundled?
>

(I assume this is about LICENSE and NOTICE for the convenience binaries.)
Both these files are automatically generated for the given build. I
double-checked the files referred to in LICENSE, and they seem to exist in
the binary, so as far as I can tell, we really bundle this stuff.


> - NOTICE seems to contain too much information
>

I believe this is based on the NOTICE files of the included dependencies.
Is there something specific we should remove?

Thanks,
    Jan


> - For long licenses it best to use a pointer the the full text of the
> license rather than include the full text
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> 2. https://vimeo.com/171210141
> 3. https://github.com/justinmclean/ApacheWombat
> 4. nbbuild/licenses/LGPL-2.1
> 5. test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/editor/settings/
> storage/compatibility/p1/SFS-Editors-Folder.zip/Editors/
> AnnotationTypes/Breakpoint.xml
> 6. css.lib/src/org/netbeans/modules/css/lib/antlrv4.patch
> 7. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/orm_1_0.xsd
> 8. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/persistence_1_0.xsd
> 9. refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
> org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
> 10. websvc.saas.api/src/org/netbeans/modules/websvc/saas/
> model/wadl20061109.xsd
> 11. xml.jaxb/src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/jaxb/resources/
> eclipselink_oxm_2_3.xsd
> 12. maven.coverage/src/org/netbeans/modules/maven/coverage/jacoco-1.0.dtd
> 13. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/orm_2_0.xsd
> 14. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/orm_2_1.xsd
> 15. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/persistence_2_0.xsd
> 16. j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/
> persistence/dd/resources/persistence_2_1.xsd
> 17. diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
> provider/DiffTestFile1a.txt
> 18. diff/test/unit/src/org/netbeans/modules/diff/builtin/
> provider/DiffTestFile1b.txt
> 19 apisupport.installer/src/org/netbeans/modules/apisupport/
> installer/resources/licenses/GPL
> 20. css.model/test/unit/data/testfiles/bootstrap.css
> 21. html.validation/external/validator.patch
> 22. html.editor/src/org/netbeans/modules/html/editor/resources/
> DTDs/4_0/HTMLlat1.ent
> 23. welcome/src/org/netbeans/modules/welcome/resources/rss-0_91.dtd
> 24. src/org/netbeans/modules/xml/catalog/resources/Transform.xsd
> 25. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
> 26. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/
> process_start-linux-intel.zip
> 27. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/
> process_start-mac-intel.zip
> 28. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/
> process_start-solaris-intel.zip
> 29. ./lib.terminalemulator/examples/lib.richexecution/
> process_start-solaris-sparc.zip
> 30. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/DisplayShelf/src/displayshelf/animalX.jpg
> 31. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/Fireworks/src/Fireworks/sf.jpg
> 32. ./netbeans/javafx2.samples/PuzzlePieces/src/puzzlepieces/
> PuzzlePieces-picture.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean-3
Hi,

> Hi Justing,

It’s Justin actually.

> Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other
> things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple
> or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case
> the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the only
> system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to
> handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files that
> would cause tests fail may have no license header:
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions <https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>

IMO If it's code it should have a header, having 700+ files without headers makes it very hard to find other files which are missing headers.

> There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a
> dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release files.

OK (and that may be totally fine) but it's confusing to have the  license in the source release if that code is not a dependancy or bundled.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
Hi Justin,

Many thanks for your thorough review, by the end of this we’re really going
to have a release that is excellently IP-cleared.

Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
their take on your review too. Just curious, that’s all, how they evaluate
your points. Also note that the link to the PPMC vote thread provides a
link to the Ant Rat results, not sure why you’re getting different results.

Many thanks again,

Gj

On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justing,
>
> It’s Justin actually.
>
> > Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other
> > things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple
> > or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case
> > the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the
> only
> > system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to
> > handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files
> that
> > would cause tests fail may have no license header:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions <
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
>
> IMO If it's code it should have a header, having 700+ files without
> headers makes it very hard to find other files which are missing headers.
>
> > There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a
> > dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release
> files.
>
> OK (and that may be totally fine) but it's confusing to have the  license
> in the source release if that code is not a dependancy or bundled.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Jan Lahoda
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean-3
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hi Justing,
>
> It’s Justin actually.
>

Opops, sorry.


>
> > Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other
> > things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple
> > or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case
> > the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the
> only
> > system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to
> > handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files
> that
> > would cause tests fail may have no license header:
> > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions <
> https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions>
>
> IMO If it's code it should have a header, having 700+ files without
> headers makes it very hard to find other files which are missing headers.
>

Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
removed), to avoid further confusion?

Thanks,
    Jan


>
> > There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a
> > dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release
> files.
>
> OK (and that may be totally fine) but it's confusing to have the  license
> in the source release if that code is not a dependancy or bundled.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean-3
In reply to this post by Geertjan Wielenga
Hi,

> Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
> their take on your review too. Just curious, that’s all, how they evaluate
> your points.

Sure I would also be interested in what they have to say and I would be wiling to change my vote if they can convince me to do so / provide reasons for why the issues I brought up are not serious issues and can be fixed in a later release.

> Also note that the link to the PPMC vote thread provides a
> link to the Ant Rat results, not sure why you’re getting different results.

It may be (and I’ve not checked) that the rat exclusions you have (if you have any) been set a little too wide. I run rat manually over the entire source release as that tends to pick up a few things that sometimes may be missed.

Thanks,
Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean-3
In reply to this post by Jan Lahoda
Hi,

> Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
> removed), to avoid further confusion?

It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not test code.

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

John D. Ament-2
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean-3
Justin,

I haven't gone through the full release yet, but wanted to run this by you.

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:54 AM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
> > their take on your review too. Just curious, that’s all, how they
> evaluate
> > your points.
>
> Sure I would also be interested in what they have to say and I would be
> wiling to change my vote if they can convince me to do so / provide reasons
> for why the issues I brought up are not serious issues and can be fixed in
> a later release.
>
>
I see there's multiple issues in here, but do you agree that files like [1]
are dual licensed EPLv1 and EDLv1 (BSD-3-Clause) so can be included?

[1]:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/j2ee.persistence/src/org/netbeans/modules/j2ee/persistence/dd/resources/orm_2_0.xsd



> > Also note that the link to the PPMC vote thread provides a
> > link to the Ant Rat results, not sure why you’re getting different
> results.
>
> It may be (and I’ve not checked) that the rat exclusions you have (if you
> have any) been set a little too wide. I run rat manually over the entire
> source release as that tends to pick up a few things that sometimes may be
> missed.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Jan Lahoda
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean-3
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
> > removed), to avoid further confusion?
>
> It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not
> test code.
>

Yes. I guess I wonder about which specific files we are talking here. If it
is e.g.:
refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
or:
refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/projects/RefactoringTest/src/introduceParameter/Class_A_A.java
or:
java.hints/test/unit/data/javahints/AbstractError1.java

then these are test data (they are in test/*/data directories), not test
code. They are a (semi) Java source code, as the Java related features run
on "Java" source code, so that's what we need for testing.

Jan


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by John D. Ament-2
Hi,

> I see there's multiple issues in here, but do you agree that files like [1]
> are dual licensed EPLv1 and EDLv1 (BSD-3-Clause) so can be included?

Normally when something is dual licensed  you include which license you select in the LICENSE file. [1] EDL is Category A so if something was was EPL or EDL licensed then that would be fine. However I’m not 100% sure that the file is dual licensed in that you can select which license applies. From the header “ This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse Distribution License v. 1.0  which accompanies this distribution.” to me that seems to be saying that parts of the content are under each license not that you can select a license.

Note that the category B description also contains this text below, so it may be allowed on that basis. (Given that it’s very unlikely to change.)

"For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification.”

Thanks
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

John D. Ament-2
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 5:05 PM Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I see there's multiple issues in here, but do you agree that files like
> [1]
> > are dual licensed EPLv1 and EDLv1 (BSD-3-Clause) so can be included?
>
> Normally when something is dual licensed  you include which license you
> select in the LICENSE file. [1] EDL is Category A so if something was was
> EPL or EDL licensed then that would be fine. However I’m not 100% sure that
> the file is dual licensed in that you can select which license applies.
> From the header “ This program and the accompanying materials are made
> available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 and Eclipse
> Distribution License v. 1.0  which accompanies this distribution.” to me
> that seems to be saying that parts of the content are under each license
> not that you can select a license.
>
> Note that the category B description also contains this text below, so it
> may be allowed on that basis. (Given that it’s very unlikely to change.)
>
> "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product
> at runtime in source form, and for which that source is unmodified and
> unlikely to be changed anyway (say, by virtue of being specified by a
> standard), inclusion of appropriately labeled source is also permitted. An
> example of this is the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd, whose inclusion is mandated
> by the JSR 127: JavaServer Faces specification.”
>


the XSDs for JPA 2.0 and up are EPL/EDL, however the XSDs for 1.0 are
GPL/CDDL.  If you want to review [1].  AIUI the XSDs are part of the
"accompanying materials" portion of the license.  Either way, this only
explains a small part of the licensing issues in the release.

[1]:
http://www.oracle.com/webfolder/technetwork/jsc/xml/ns/persistence/persistence_2_0.xsd


>
> Thanks
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#mutually-exclusive
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean-3
Hi,

> the XSDs for JPA 2.0 and up are EPL/EDL, however the XSDs for 1.0 are
> GPL/CDDL.  If you want to review [1].  AIUI the XSDs are part of the
> "accompanying materials" portion of the license.  Either way, this only
> explains a small part of the licensing issues in the release.

Interesting enough if you go to the link specified in that header [1] and read the text you’ll see that it places restrictions on commercial use and that the open source license only applies to non commercial use. Wouldn’t this be a concern?

Thanks,
Justin


1. http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=317
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
In reply to this post by Jan Lahoda
Yes, we excluded test/*/data directories via rat exclusions on the basis
that files within them are test data and hence can be excluded. There is no
test code here. At worst, as pointed out below, there’s pseudo code.

Gj

On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Jan Lahoda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
> > > removed), to avoid further confusion?
> >
> > It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not
> > test code.
> >
>
> Yes. I guess I wonder about which specific files we are talking here. If it
> is e.g.:
> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
> org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
> or:
> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/projects/RefactoringTest/src/
> introduceParameter/Class_A_A.java
> or:
> java.hints/test/unit/data/javahints/AbstractError1.java
>
> then these are test data (they are in test/*/data directories), not test
> code. They are a (semi) Java source code, as the Java related features run
> on "Java" source code, so that's what we need for testing.
>
> Jan
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are not
visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course, what
we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point would
be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when running
rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
start discussions from the same basis.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Geertjan Wielenga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes, we excluded test/*/data directories via rat exclusions on the basis
> that files within them are test data and hence can be excluded. There is no
> test code here. At worst, as pointed out below, there’s pseudo code.
>
> Gj
>
> On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Jan Lahoda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > Could please the FAQ be updated with exact requirements (or the point
>> > > removed), to avoid further confusion?
>> >
>> > It [1] seems clear to me i.e. there’s an exception for test data but not
>> > test code.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. I guess I wonder about which specific files we are talking here. If
>> it
>> is e.g.:
>> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/goldenfiles/
>> org/netbeans/modules/test/refactoring/MoveTest/testMoveClass.pass
>> or:
>> refactoring.java/test/qa-functional/data/projects/Refactorin
>> gTest/src/introduceParameter/Class_A_A.java
>> or:
>> java.hints/test/unit/data/javahints/AbstractError1.java
>>
>> then these are test data (they are in test/*/data directories), not test
>> code. They are a (semi) Java source code, as the Java related features run
>> on "Java" source code, so that's what we need for testing.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are not
> visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course, what
> we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point would
> be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when running
> rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> start discussions from the same basis.

A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I can’t see it in the source release.

IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses, category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s then it’s a release.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
The exclusions are in the build.xml in github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans.

I am quite sure that the rat exclusions are set too wide, at this point,
the idea being to resolve those over the coming releases bit by bit.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are
> not
> > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> what
> > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> would
> > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> running
> > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> > start discussions from the same basis.
>
> A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case
> it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> can’t see it in the source release.
>
> IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses,
> category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my
> vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s
> then it’s a release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Jan Lahoda
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are
> not
> > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> what
> > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> would
> > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> running
> > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> > start discussions from the same basis.
>
> A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case
> it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> can’t see it in the source release.
>

The exclusions start here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077

(nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)

I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to
fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers in
case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if
that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the FAQ
may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
discussions for others in the future.

Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For
example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?

Thanks,
   Jan


>
> IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses,
> category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my
> vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s
> then it’s a release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Geertjan Wielenga
I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.

I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
to advise on their perspective on this too.

Gj

On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are
> > not
> > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> > what
> > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> > would
> > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > running
> > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can
> > > start discussions from the same basis.
> >
> > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case
> > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> > can’t see it in the source release.
> >
>
> The exclusions start here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
>
> (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
>
> I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to
> fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers in
> case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if
> that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the FAQ
> may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> discussions for others in the future.
>
> Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For
> example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
>
> Thanks,
>    Jan
>
>
> >
> > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses,
> > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my
> > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s
> > then it’s a release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Ted Dunning
Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the
past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early
releases from a new podling.

The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have
to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and
for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for
the purpose of hiding serious problems.

No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history
outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to
have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before
release.



On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
> exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
> with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on
> the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
>
> I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors
> to advise on their perspective on this too.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that
> are
> > > not
> > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course,
> > > what
> > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point
> > > would
> > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when
> > > running
> > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and
> can
> > > > start discussions from the same basis.
> > >
> > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this
> case
> > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I
> > > can’t see it in the source release.
> > >
> >
> > The exclusions start here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/
> > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077
> >
> > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077)
> >
> > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to
> > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers
> in
> > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if
> > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the
> FAQ
> > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary
> > discussions for others in the future.
> >
> > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For
> > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the
> > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Jan
> >
> >
> > >
> > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing
> licenses,
> > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so
> my
> > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is
> > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your
> > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than
> -1s
> > > then it’s a release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
123