The one argument for putting the (new) repo in the pom is that does make getting started
contributing easier, and buildable on a clean system with no changes.
Maven guys used to recommend not putting repos in poms, but they changed that a while back
and now don't discourage it.
On 19 May 2011, at 10:58, Manik Surtani wrote:
On 19 May 2011, at 09:52, Galder ZamarreƱo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So, what's our current approach towards hardcoding maven repositories in the
pom.xml files?
>
> Should we allow JBoss repos to be defined master/parent/pom.xml? This was added by
Adrian C when he upgraded JClouds:
>
> <repository>
> <id>jboss</id>
> <
url>http://repository.jboss.org/maven2</url>
> </repository>
>
> First of all, this is a deprecated repo and not sure it should even be amongst the
configured repositories.
>
> Secondly, the idea so far has been that users configure the JBoss Maven repo in their
settings.xml -
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/MavenGettingStarted-Users
I think we should still stick to putting it in settings.xml since even as a bootstrap for
project X to reach infinispan jars, you'd need the JBoss repo either in project
X's pom or in settings.xml.
Now in some cases I've seen third-party repos exposed in certain modules' poms.
This needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but is generally discouraged. For
example, infinispan-spring declares a repo which contains some Spring 3.1 milestone
artefacts, and cachestore-cloud points to a repo with JClouds milestones/snapshots.
--
Manik Surtani
manik(a)jboss.org
twitter.com/maniksurtani
Lead, Infinispan
http://www.infinispan.org
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev