Those other repos (jboss-public, fuse-public, jboss-developer-staging) exists just to make it easy to add them for development branches. We use jboss-developer-staging a lot for staged BOMs.

I also added Fuse repo because 6.1.0 was released using it. Check it: https://github.com/jboss-fuse/quickstarts/releases - Should it be removed ?

One of the goals of QSTools:repositories goal (1.5.0.CR3) is to make it easy to setup repos by making only redhat-techpreview-all-repository  and redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository available on stable branches.


I'll wait Fred to confirm repo IDs. Thanks


On 11/13/14 11:21, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote:
On 31 Oct 2014, at 22:34, Rafael Benevides wrote:

Max/Fred

Can you please review https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-997344 and confirm if those ids are ok. If not, do you mind to place the right information at the document?

sorry for late response.

Looking at this list the only two repositories I consider valid in production quickstarts are:

redhat-techpreview-all-repository
http://maven.repository.redhat.com/techpreview/all/

redhat-earlyaccess-all-repository (for things not GA)
https://maven.repository.redhat.com/earlyaccess/all/


These are I'm surprised we are now letting in:

Jboss public repo is not something our productized nor project quickstarts should depend on is it ? Was there not a requirement for quickstarts
to *not* rely on this repo that is a big mashup of dependencies and instead only rely on central published artifacts ?
jboss-public-repository
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/content/groups/public/

Fuse reposource repo I thought was only being used for old fuse releases ? If that is no longer the case then that is not great since
it seem to have a lot of redundancy of artifacts.
fuse-public-repository
https://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public

This repo I do not understand what is for and should not be exposed anywhere IMO. Only relevant to put in testers own settings.xml is it not ?
jboss-developer-staging-repository
http://jboss-developer.github.io/temp-maven-repo/

About the ID's correctness/alignment with our tools that is something Fred should be able to verify better than I.

/max

Pete/Max,

Do you know if Fuse maven repository still valid ?


Thanks

On 10/31/14 11:56, Rafael Benevides wrote:
Hi all,

I was thinking about the implementation of the repository definition in pom.xml and I want to share my thoughts:

- Create a QSTools CHECKER to mark the lack of <repository /> as a guideline violation if MavenCentralChecker is disabled.
- The violation message will instruct to use the new QSTools GOAL that will be created

- Create another QSTools GOAL to setup the repositories.
- There will be a list of approved repositories and its IDs (redhat techpreview, earlyacess, jboss developer temporary, etc)
- QSTools will remove all previous repositories from pom.xml and prompt which repositories should be added.
- This will help Quickstarts and demos to be easily buildable from development and production branches and will also allow this list to be bulk updated to remove any previous development repository definition.

Please,

If you have any feedback on this, feel free to reply.

-- 

*Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer*
JBoss Developer
M: +55-61-9269-6576

Red Hat

Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at www.redhat.com <http://www.redhat.com/>

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/3258288> Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/redhatlatam>


_______________________________________________
jbossdeveloper mailing list
jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper

_______________________________________________
jbossdeveloper mailing list
jbossdeveloper@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbossdeveloper


/max
http://about.me/maxandersen