Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Deployments aren't currently atomic, so if a deploy is interrupted, it
can leave the repo in an inconsistent state.
This adds the basics of atomic deploys, with the following additional
changes:
deploy from the tmp upload dir to the repo, and need the :artifact-map
functionality that doesn't exist in 0.0.13
easier to debug, and easier to determine where values come
from (instead of doing magic binding, like we were doing with
'account)
The atomic deploy functionality uses sessions (since aether honors
session cookies) to store uploads in a tmp dir that is scoped to the
deploy. Once we see a non-snapshot maven-metadata.xml, we finalize the
deployment by verifying the contents and then deploying them to the
actual repo. This process ignores checksum files, since the redeploy
recreates them.
The finalize process also validates the deploy, which includes the
existing validations (that were once per-artifact), plus adds some new
ones that operate over the full set of artifacts. The validations
are (existing validations marked with ^):
signature
Now that we are validating after all the artifacts are pushed, we no
longer fail-fast on redeploys or invalid gav's, but I don't think that
should cause issues.
The change to require valid poms is debatable, given that it will
prevent deploys of projects that are affected by #233.