Should I have permissions to deploy to the org.apache.commons groupId on the asf maven repos?
Because I'm getting a "Forbidden" error [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-deploy-plugin:2.8.2:deploy (default-deploy) on project commons-rdf-parent: Failed to deploy artifacts: Could not transfer artifact org.apache.commons:commons-rdf-parent:pom:0.1.0-incubating-20150430.070743-14 from/to apache.snapshots.https ( https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots): Access denied to: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/commons/commons-rdf-parent/0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/commons-rdf-parent-0.1.0-incubating-20150430.070743-14.pom, ReasonPhrase: Forbidden. -> [Help 1] And the password is not the issue, I can deploy snapshots to other groupId... Do we need to request permissions via the Commons PMC? I know Jenkins takes care of such deployments, but I was just verifying some things towards the release. Cheers, On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, now that COMMONSRDF-6 looks closer to its resolution, our backlog > looks clean for proceeding with our first release: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20COMMONSRDF%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC > > Due Peter's timezone I'd still await to the (European) afternoon to > resolve COMMONSRDF-6, and then I'll prepare the release from the current > HEAD (48dc067806e627d4871a2aee09bec5b27f84e3e7) and cast the vote. > > In the meantime all comments are welcomed ;-) > > > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Sergio Fernández < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> As I've just commented on COMMONSRDF-6, I'm fine with the two changes >> Peter proposed. I think they do not change the essence behind the patch, >> but just make less strong some wording. So should be fine to update be PR >> with those minor changes before merging into master for starting to work on >> 0.1.0-incubating release. >> >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> at least some kind of *reference seems to be what we're settling on :) >>> >>> On 27 April 2015 at 16:27, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > ups... >>> > >>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Sergio Fernández < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> I'd prefer internalIdentifier(), but uniqueReference() should be also >>> fine >>> >> >>> > >>> > I actually wanted to say "I'd prefer internalReference(), but >>> > uniqueReference() should be also fine". >>> > >>> > Sorry for the (big) mistake. I guess this discussion is taking too long >>> > that I can get confused when thinking about solutions. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Sergio Fernández >>> > Partner Technology Manager >>> > Redlink GmbH >>> > m: +43 6602747925 >>> > e: [email protected] >>> > w: http://redlink.co >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Stian Soiland-Reyes >>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating) >>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sergio Fernández >> Partner Technology Manager >> Redlink GmbH >> m: +43 6602747925 >> e: [email protected] >> w: http://redlink.co >> > > > > -- > Sergio Fernández > Partner Technology Manager > Redlink GmbH > m: +43 6602747925 > e: [email protected] > w: http://redlink.co > -- Sergio Fernández Partner Technology Manager Redlink GmbH m: +43 6602747925 e: [email protected] w: http://redlink.co
