judging from the response I have gotten from people both wanting and not wanting repositories declared for various integrations with jetty, the problem folks seem to be ones where their corporate policy dictate they can not use any repo other then central but they do not have a repo manager setup.
since we can't rightly force people to install and maintain repository managers, at first blush I would probably error on the side of a option in the settings.xml a la offline <transitiveRepositories>true/false</transtiveRepositories> jesse -- jesse mcconnell jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:03, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote: > I would advocate not allowing them, but using them to provide useful > information in the case of a resolution exception that can easily guide the > user on what to do. > > If folks strongly want to continue to allow it, I would go with a prominent > warning (which is the case for several other things now). > > As to what the user is guided to do - I assume that is to declare them as > repositories in the current project, or to refer to their repository > manager's documentation to add it there (with this being recommended). In > the long run I'd hope Maven can better handle multiple repositories OOTB (in > a way that still complements the use of a repository manager) - actually I > remember briefly talking to Brian about that at last year's ApacheCon Maven > BOF :) Time flies... > > - Brett > > On 28/10/2009, at 10:52 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> following a comment by Wendy on JIRA, I wanted to re-check what our plans >> are for repositories in dependency POMs. In more detail, how is dependency >> resolution in Maven 3.x expected to work here: >> >> project ---depends-on---> A ---depends-on---> B >> >> where the POM of A declares the repository R hosting B. >> >> Now, when it comes to resolve B's POM/JAR (and its transitive >> dependencies) in the context of building the project, should Maven 3 also >> consider R (like currently done in Maven 2) or only those repositories that >> are available for the root of the dependency graph, i.e. the repositories >> declared in the POM of the project and the settings? >> >> Besides the question of the degree of backward-compat we want to keep, the >> issue with ignoring the repositories declared in dependency POMs I see is >> the effect on open source projects and their consumers. If one project >> consumes the artifacts of another, do we want the first project to redeclare >> all repositories required to resolve the transitive dependencies of the >> second project? Some arguments for the other side can be found in [1]. >> >> So, where do we want to go with this? >> >> >> Benjamin >> >> >> [0] >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4413?focusedCommentId=196344&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_196344 >> [1] http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3056 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
