"The best way is to sync your stuff to the Central Repository" -- true,
but again, there are cases where this is _not possible_. What then? I feel we keep repeating this mantra, but leaving out some cornerstones... On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 12:04 AM Manfred Moser <manf...@simpligility.com> wrote: > The best way is to sync your stuff to the Central Repository imho. > > Otherwise you are probably best off with using repositories in the POM or > a checked in settings file and build.sh reference command build like mvn -s > ... > > manfred > > Curtis Rueden wrote on 2016-10-17 15:00: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I have an OSS project with "mixed" dependencies—some in central, and some > > in our public Maven repo (because they are still in incubation or > > beta). Every time this discussion arises, I find myself wondering the > same > > thing: how can you achieve an "out-of-the-box" build for such a project, > > without specifying <repositories>? All the alternatives I see people > > suggest (e.g., checking in settings.xml to the repository) would require > > each and every new developer to perform some one-time bootstrap before > the > > project will build. This will turn away many new & inexperienced > developers > > if they try to import the project into their favorite IDE and it fails to > > build. > > > > Regards, > > Curtis > > > > -- > > Curtis Rueden > > LOCI software architect - http://loci.wisc.edu/software > > ImageJ2 lead, Fiji maintainer - http://imagej.net/User:Rueden > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Manfred Moser <manf...@simpligility.com > > > > wrote: > > > >> If you really feel you need to control the source of where you download > >> components from within the source control system > >> I would still NOT use the repositories definition in the POM since that > is > >> them transferred to the target repo on deployment (unless you use > flatten). > >> > >> Instead I would check in a specific settings.xml as part of the > project... > >> or even multiple ones for different build scenarios.. > >> > >> Manfred > >> > >> KARR, DAVID wrote on 2016-10-17 14:42: > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Manfred Moser [mailto:manf...@simpligility.com] > >> >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:35 PM > >> >> To: users@maven.apache.org > >> >> Subject: Re: Comparing specifying repositories in pom vs. > settings.xml? > >> >> > >> >> > http://blog.sonatype.com/2009/02/why-putting-repositories-in-your-poms- > >> >> is-a-bad-idea/ > >> > > >> > The point about open-source projects is well-taken. I would never > >> specify > >> > repositories in a POM for a public project. > >> > > >> > The section about "Enterprise" just seems odd to me. It seems very > >> focused on > >> > "central", when that might not be the case at all. We use many > >> open-source > >> > projects, but those aren't very volatile. We use dozens of internal > >> artifacts, > >> > and there isn't a lot of doubt about what repos to get particular > kinds > >> of > >> > artifacts from. I find build repeatability more important (specifying > >> all > >> > requirements in the build script). The requirement about "generally > >> will want > >> > all your developers using the same set of repositories" is pretty > >> important to > >> > me, but the recommended solution just seems counterproductive. > >> Specifying it > >> > in the POM for the project seems to be the most direct way to ensure > >> that. > >> > > >> >> KARR, DAVID wrote on 2016-10-17 13:03: > >> >> > >> >> > One thing I run into when jumping between different projects is > >> >> > different expectations for what maven repos I need to be using. In > >> >> > the past, I had to have multiple copies of "~/.m2/settings.xml" > lying > >> >> > around, and I would hack the specified repos when I needed to. > >> >> > > >> >> > Recently, I saw a situation where the required repositories were > >> >> > simply defined in the top-level pom for the project. If this is > done > >> >> > consistently, there's no longer any need to hack the settings.xml > >> >> file. > >> >> > > >> >> > I seem to remember seeing some advice that specifying repositories > in > >> >> > the POM is a bad practice. If I'm remembering this correctly, this > >> >> > seems odd. Forcing the correct repos to be defined in the > >> >> > settings.xml works against "repeatable builds". > >> >> > > >> >> > What is the recommended advice here? > >> >> > > >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org > >
