My team always favors defining repos in the top-level (parent) POM.  If we 
require special project-specific settings that must be in settings.xml, we put 
settings.xml in the top-level of the project source tree and check it in...

For publishing projects to our binary repo for consumption by other groups, we 
simply use the flatten-maven-plugin to strip out the repo (and other 
build-related stuff) from the published POM.

-----Original Message-----
From: KARR, DAVID [] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 3:03 PM
Subject: Comparing specifying repositories in pom vs. settings.xml?

One thing I run into when jumping between different projects is different 
expectations for what maven repos I need to be using.  In the past, I had to 
have multiple copies of "~/.m2/settings.xml" lying around, and I would hack the 
specified repos when I needed to.

Recently, I saw a situation where the required repositories were simply defined 
in the top-level pom for the project.  If this is done consistently, there's no 
longer any need to hack the settings.xml file.

I seem to remember seeing some advice that specifying repositories in the POM 
is a bad practice.  If I'm remembering this correctly, this seems odd.  Forcing 
the correct repos to be defined in the settings.xml works against "repeatable 

What is the recommended advice here?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to