On Thursday, 15 December 2016, Christian Schulte <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 12/15/16 um 01:09 schrieb Christian Schulte: > > I would have expected the nearest wins strategy as well, BTW. Seems to > > not make sense for the resolver to just ignore repository declarations > > matching an ID already discovered at another level. > > Well. Makes perfect sense for the resolver to do it that way. It also is > consistent to the way dependency management is implemented. > > POM (I am authoring) > - dependency management I want to be applied > - repositories I want to be used > - dependencies to be resolved > > When resolving the dependencies for that POM, I do not want any direct > or transitive dependency to alter *my* dependency management or *my* > repositories. I updated the core to match that logic. Should be correct. > > Yes local Pom should win. And I think parent trumps dependency too > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > -- Sent from my phone
