-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
why don't we use sbt-sonatype? #37
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
You may want to use |
Actually I think this ticket suggests to release the plugin to
sonatype/maven instead of bintray, not the projects using the plugin 🙂 but
I got confused as well.
|
ha, I see now that the ticket description I wrote is confused between those two interpretations for the record,
|
👍 that's fine with me. publishing to bintray is really simple once it's set up, i find. https://github.com/olafurpg/sbt-ci-release#how-do-i-publish-sbt-plugins suggests publishing sbt plugins to maven central is also common these days. |
since Bintray is going away, I ended up doing this in #121 — we are now publishing the plugin itself using sbt-ci-release (which incorporates sbt-sonatype) |
what's the advantage of going through bintray-sbt, given that ultimately the artifacts are destined for Sonatype instead?
as @xerial points out, using sbt-sonatype could save us the trouble of having to use the Sonatype web UI to close and release the staging repos. that costs an extra 5 minutes or so (longer if it's been a while and we need to remember exactly how it goes).
currently we use the manual step:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: