maven-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Thiessen, Todd (Todd)" <>
Subject RE: Company-wide settings
Date Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:31:39 GMT
You only need distribution management to specify what you deploy to, not where you get artifacts
from. Very different. Deploying to has none of the issues described in the blog entry. This
is a good use of the distro mangement section and you should put that in a parent pom somewhere
and is not a bad thing as you are alluding to.

Your solution of svn externals sounds very complicated ;-). I am sure you will run into a
number of problems with it.

There are also a couple of other issues that the blog discusses that you have not mentioned

1. If a transitive pom specifies a repository, you are going to hit the internet to try and
download that dependency and not from your corporate repository.

2. Once you put repository information in your pom it is burned there forever. So if an artifact
moves to another repository, you tags will not build and you will have to track down artifacts
manually. While this is less of a problem for the Enterprise, it can and does happen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phillip Hellewell []
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:29 PM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: Company-wide settings
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Thiessen, Todd (Todd)
> <> wrote:
> > Right. The blog entry explains this "bootstrapping" problem quite well.
> I'm not sure I will have the "bootstrap" problem, because I'm thinking
> about having this company pom be in SVN in a directory that all other
> components get automatically upon checkout via svn:externals.
> Since I am treating this pom as a settings file, I don't even care
> about it being in a repository, ever.  In fact, if possible I would
> like to make it impossible for it to get deployed to a repository.  I
> really want it to just be a settings file.
> Of course I'd much rather use the settings.xml for all this, but if I
> have to use a pom to specify the distributionManagement, then why not
> put the repositories in there too, as that keeps them all in the same
> place, will be easier to maintain, and everyone gets updates to it
> automatically.
> If putting repositories in POMs is a "Bad Idea", then I'd argue that
> putting distributionManagement in POMs is a "Bad Idea" too, but for
> some reason the settings.xml doesn't allow distributionManagement in
> there.
> Phillip
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message