incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade Chandler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal
Date Sat, 24 Sep 2016 03:34:14 GMT
Phone top posting:

I agree plugins are a huge part of NetBeans success; you need them for
Gradle support as an example. Sure, you can install them outside the
portal, but it is a pain for most. What ever you all are able to do is
greatly appreciated; whether now or soon, and whether that is an incubator
stipulation or not.

But, along with this discussion plus some other questions I saw, and just
to be clear if doing this sooner rather than later, there is a difference
in the sources and the binaries; I realise I may be reiterating on a prior
statement, but I think it is key.

Does Maven only host Apache owned plugins? What is the difference? The IDE
and platform have to be able to compete as a project and community. Does
Eclipse or JetBrains own all of the ones in their portals? What about

I ask these obvious rhetorical questions to get to this point: Would it be
feasible for NetBeans to succeed among competing projects with such a
stipulation that all hosted or distributed plugins be contributed to Apache
or licensed the same? Without an ecosystem and infrastructure that doesn't
force everyone into the same model, which is why the Apache license has
been so successful on a different level IMO, and Maven and Gradle on a
similar level, then I don't see such a project succeeding considering its
user base and use cases.

I agree porting plugins portal to use Maven central won't happen overnight,
and the community won't do well without the portal; it would be a huge set
back. Too, even if the artifacts are in central, the portal UI will still
be necessary as the artifact UI just doesn't support the same use cases; in
case there is any question.



On Sep 23, 2016 10:59 PM, "Greg Stein" <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> > <> wrote:
> > >...there hasn't even been a vote on the proposal at this stage. :-)
> >
> > Correct ;-)
> >
> > FWIW I've seen an internal draft of Daniel Gruno's infrastructure cost
> > analysis so that's progressing nicely, we should have public results
> > soon and can then move forward.
> >
> One thing that is coming out of this discussion, and the costing is
> plugins.nb.o. That seems to be a critical part of the NetBeans ecosystem
> and cannot just be "left behind for a few months, and we'll hope to figure
> it out before Oracle shuts it down".
> I think it would be a tremendous hardship to the community to enter
> incubation, not solve plugins.nb.o, and get their podling retired. Where
> would NB go then? Would not be fun. (and by "solve", I mean: some basic
> technical approach here at the ASF, and a +1 that the ASF can absorb the
> related cost).
> As an IPMC member, I'd be hard-pressed to accept NB without some of idea of
> how the community will handle plugins. As Infra, I can help Daniel Gruno
> with the costing and getting that +1 from on high.
> (Note: I am sure that NB could be changed over time to use (say) Maven
> Central, as mentioned else-thread, but that change is a multi-year rollout;
> plugins.nb.o would likely need to exist even past that)
> Cheers,
> -g

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message