Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On 10/5/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: >>> So the options we have are: >> 4) Another option is to simply remove the poms and to not declare the >> local stage folder as a maven repository in the main pom.xml. >> This way our internal "maven based" procedures will need to be online, >> but everything else is ok. >> >> I refactored the lib folder to "stage" structure some weeks ago to have >> a self contained build for maven and to have a common structure in our >> product source folders and I saw no drawbacks at that time but having >> found this "licensing" issue with poms we could even evaluate reverting >> it (even if I still prefer #4 and #3 to #1, #2 or revert to lib folder). > > this sounds good to me
The revert to lib or the #4 option? Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
