You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commonsrdf.apache.org by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> on 2015/05/03 16:44:34 UTC
[RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy artifacts
to org.apache.commons groupId
Hi,
we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
org.apache.commons groupId [1].
The path of the project of graduating as a Commons components has not
changed. So we have agreed to keep compatible with the current Commons
approach, naming our artifacts as org.apache.commons:commons-rdf-*
Therefore the PPMC would like to discuss that with you, asking for
permissions to deploy to the Commons groupId.
Thanks so much.
Cheers,
[1] http://markmail.org/message/uctgwzq2f7ueuwib
[2] http://markmail.org/message/jrle67wpuhenqhic
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>.
It is such a common pattern to have the artifactId begin with the last part
of the groupId that the OSGi bundle plugin handles that case out of the box.
Top-posting because I'm on my phone. Sorry.
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 8:49 PM Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try mailing repository@
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 2015-05-04 18:46 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
> >> issue
> >>>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
> >> the
> >>>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
> >>>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
> >>>> former seems overly broad to me.
> >>>
> >>> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
> >>> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
> >>> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
> >>> proceed as proposed.
> >>
> >> Some rambling thoughts (tm):
> >>
> >> I like to 'fix' things too but I was on the fence about this one until
> now.
> >> Yes, there is a redundancy because the substring 'commons' is in the
> >> AID/GID twice; but that is OK I claim. Why? The GID is the TLP ID, so of
> >> course we have o.a.commons, that's a must. The AID is the component,
> which
> >> I always call Commons Foo, and sometimes Apache Commons Foo when I want
> to
> >> make it clear to folks (at work for example) that I am talking about
> >> software hosted at Apache. If I were to talk within Apache about Foo, I
> bet
> >> some folks would not know what Foo is or where it lives. If I say
> 'Commons
> >> Foo' then it's obvious (I hope). That is how I justify to myself the
> >> commons in the AID.
> >>
> >> FWIW: Over at Log4j, we have "log4j-" as the prefix for all module
> names,
> >> and no one seems to mind.
> >
> > I'm all for consistency. VFS does it this way, Weaver does it this way,
> > Chain does it this way. And GID matching TLP ID makes sense as well.
> >
> > Who can grant the necessary permissions?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Gary
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Phil
> >>>>
> >>>> Jochen
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> >> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> > http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> > http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> > http://github.com/britter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
Try mailing repository@
> On May 4, 2015, at 12:32 PM, Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 2015-05-04 18:46 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
>> issue
>>>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
>> the
>>>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
>>>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
>>>> former seems overly broad to me.
>>>
>>> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
>>> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
>>> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
>>> proceed as proposed.
>>
>> Some rambling thoughts (tm):
>>
>> I like to 'fix' things too but I was on the fence about this one until now.
>> Yes, there is a redundancy because the substring 'commons' is in the
>> AID/GID twice; but that is OK I claim. Why? The GID is the TLP ID, so of
>> course we have o.a.commons, that's a must. The AID is the component, which
>> I always call Commons Foo, and sometimes Apache Commons Foo when I want to
>> make it clear to folks (at work for example) that I am talking about
>> software hosted at Apache. If I were to talk within Apache about Foo, I bet
>> some folks would not know what Foo is or where it lives. If I say 'Commons
>> Foo' then it's obvious (I hope). That is how I justify to myself the
>> commons in the AID.
>>
>> FWIW: Over at Log4j, we have "log4j-" as the prefix for all module names,
>> and no one seems to mind.
>
> I'm all for consistency. VFS does it this way, Weaver does it this way,
> Chain does it this way. And GID matching TLP ID makes sense as well.
>
> Who can grant the necessary permissions?
>
>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> Jochen
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>> --
>> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
>> Home: http://garygregory.com/
>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
>
>
> --
> http://people.apache.org/~britter/
> http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
> http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
> http://github.com/britter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Benedikt Ritter <br...@apache.org>.
2015-05-04 18:46 GMT+02:00 Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
> issue
> > >> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
> the
> > >> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
> > > Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
> > > former seems overly broad to me.
> >
> > Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
> > org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
> > its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
> > proceed as proposed.
> >
>
> Some rambling thoughts (tm):
>
> I like to 'fix' things too but I was on the fence about this one until now.
> Yes, there is a redundancy because the substring 'commons' is in the
> AID/GID twice; but that is OK I claim. Why? The GID is the TLP ID, so of
> course we have o.a.commons, that's a must. The AID is the component, which
> I always call Commons Foo, and sometimes Apache Commons Foo when I want to
> make it clear to folks (at work for example) that I am talking about
> software hosted at Apache. If I were to talk within Apache about Foo, I bet
> some folks would not know what Foo is or where it lives. If I say 'Commons
> Foo' then it's obvious (I hope). That is how I justify to myself the
> commons in the AID.
>
> FWIW: Over at Log4j, we have "log4j-" as the prefix for all module names,
> and no one seems to mind.
>
I'm all for consistency. VFS does it this way, Weaver does it this way,
Chain does it this way. And GID matching TLP ID makes sense as well.
Who can grant the necessary permissions?
>
> Gary
>
>
> >
> > Phil
> > >
> > > Jochen
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
>
--
http://people.apache.org/~britter/
http://www.systemoutprintln.de/
http://twitter.com/BenediktRitter
http://github.com/britter
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
> >> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
> >> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
> > Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
> > former seems overly broad to me.
>
> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
> proceed as proposed.
>
Some rambling thoughts (tm):
I like to 'fix' things too but I was on the fence about this one until now.
Yes, there is a redundancy because the substring 'commons' is in the
AID/GID twice; but that is OK I claim. Why? The GID is the TLP ID, so of
course we have o.a.commons, that's a must. The AID is the component, which
I always call Commons Foo, and sometimes Apache Commons Foo when I want to
make it clear to folks (at work for example) that I am talking about
software hosted at Apache. If I were to talk within Apache about Foo, I bet
some folks would not know what Foo is or where it lives. If I say 'Commons
Foo' then it's obvious (I hope). That is how I justify to myself the
commons in the AID.
FWIW: Over at Log4j, we have "log4j-" as the prefix for all module names,
and no one seems to mind.
Gary
>
> Phil
> >
> > Jochen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
any consensus about this?
Please, take into account this issue is blocking the publication of our
first (incubating) release.
Thanks.
Cheers,
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well, we just followed Gary and Benedikt recommendation to adopt the
> current components' style. For us as podling is fine whatever you decide,
> we just need a decision (an permission to deploy over it).
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/15 12:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
>> issue
>> >>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
>> the
>> >>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
>> >>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
>> >>> former seems overly broad to me.
>> >> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
>> >> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
>> >> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
>> >> proceed as proposed.
>> >
>> > First release, and the ship has sailed? Sorry, but I don't think so.
>>
>> What I meant was the decision to standardize on
>>
>> GroupId: org.apache.commons
>> ArtifactId: commons-foo[v]
>>
>> I am -1 for making new components different.
>>
>> Phil
>> >
>> > Jochen
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Hi,
any consensus about this?
Please, take into account this issue is blocking the publication of our
first (incubating) release.
Thanks.
Cheers,
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Well, we just followed Gary and Benedikt recommendation to adopt the
> current components' style. For us as podling is fine whatever you decide,
> we just need a decision (an permission to deploy over it).
>
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/15 12:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
>> issue
>> >>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
>> the
>> >>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
>> >>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
>> >>> former seems overly broad to me.
>> >> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
>> >> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
>> >> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
>> >> proceed as proposed.
>> >
>> > First release, and the ship has sailed? Sorry, but I don't think so.
>>
>> What I meant was the decision to standardize on
>>
>> GroupId: org.apache.commons
>> ArtifactId: commons-foo[v]
>>
>> I am -1 for making new components different.
>>
>> Phil
>> >
>> > Jochen
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>.
Well, we just followed Gary and Benedikt recommendation to adopt the
current components' style. For us as podling is fine whatever you decide,
we just need a decision (an permission to deploy over it).
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/15 12:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> >>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the
> issue
> >>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to
> the
> >>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
> >>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
> >>> former seems overly broad to me.
> >> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
> >> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
> >> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
> >> proceed as proposed.
> >
> > First release, and the ship has sailed? Sorry, but I don't think so.
>
> What I meant was the decision to standardize on
>
> GroupId: org.apache.commons
> ArtifactId: commons-foo[v]
>
> I am -1 for making new components different.
>
> Phil
> >
> > Jochen
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernandez@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy artifacts
to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/3/15 12:26 PM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
>>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
>>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
>>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
>>> former seems overly broad to me.
>> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
>> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
>> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
>> proceed as proposed.
>
> First release, and the ship has sailed? Sorry, but I don't think so.
What I meant was the decision to standardize on
GroupId: org.apache.commons
ArtifactId: commons-foo[v]
I am -1 for making new components different.
Phil
>
> Jochen
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
>>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
>>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
>> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
>> former seems overly broad to me.
>
> Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
> org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
> its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
> proceed as proposed.
First release, and the ship has sailed? Sorry, but I don't think so.
Jochen
--
Any world that can produce the Taj Mahal, William Shakespeare,
and Stripe toothpaste can't be all bad. (C.R. MacNamara, One Two Three)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy artifacts
to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 5/3/15 11:56 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
>> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
>> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
> Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
> former seems overly broad to me.
Could be we should have gone that way years ago when we moved to
org.apache.commons:commons-foo; but that ship has sailed, so I think
its best to stay consistent with the rest of the components and
proceed as proposed.
Phil
>
> Jochen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
former seems overly broad to me.
Jochen
Re: [RDF] grant Commons RDF (incubating) permission to deploy
artifacts to org.apache.commons groupId
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Sergio Fernández <wi...@apache.org> wrote:
> we're discussing our first incubating release, and we came to the issue
> that we are not grant with permissions to deploy maven artifacts to the
> org.apache.commons groupId [1].
Why org.apache.commons, and not, say, org.apache.commons.rdf? The
former seems overly broad to me.
Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org