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 [mailto:dk0...@att.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 3:03 PM To: users@maven.apache.org 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 builds". What is the recommended advice here? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
