On 10/5/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
#4 comment out the local stage folder and add notes to BUILDING to explain that offline users can download poms and uncomment the line - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
