I have tried a some combinations of repository definitions in pom.xml vs. settings.xml and found that settings.xml takes precedence over pom.xml, i.e. the comment at CSC-173 is no issue because we can use default configuration in pom.xml pointing to fornax repository and those using a company repository can define other urls in settings.xml (or change in pom.xml, it is only generated once).
Correct me if I'm wrong. /Patrik Patrik Nordwall wrote: > > We have got an interesting comment in > http://www.fornax-platform.org/tracker/browse/CSC-173 CSC-173 that it is > not a good idea to have the repository definition in the pom files. > > Another opinion: > http://www.nabble.com/-fornax-repository--missing-equinox-dependency-to14252094s17564.html#a14278216 > > Does the definition in the pom takes precedence over definition in > settings.xml? > > I started this thread to gather more opinions. What do you think? > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Repositories-in-pom-tp14660711s17564p14674441.html Sent from the Fornax-Platform mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Fornax-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fornax-developer
