Sorry for thread hijack, but was not able to resist... Another thing to think about, since it's adoption:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > We do not allow <repository> definitions in pom files for a good reason. > > This seemed as a good idea, but.... think about it. Why would you _not_ put reposes in POMs? Because they will be _burned_ in to your POMs forever and your URLs may change down the road? Why is this better: * having repository defs in POMs, thus providing at least some usable info that a developer may use as starting point and google it up/search/look for it (where it went, what it was, etc) then: * providing _no_ useful information in POMs for future generations? Having no trace in your _build_ about needed reposes... Ah yes, _both_ cases are easily handled by MRMs + grouping + mirrorOf, but in 2nd case, the one building may only shoot in the dark, you did not provide _any_ information from what did you build your stuff. Think about it. ~t~
