1
0
Fork 0

add possible work-around / solution

pull/4713/head
Rob Bast 2015-12-17 14:13:37 +01:00
parent 8b12e39509
commit 04fb28a9cb
1 changed files with 7 additions and 3 deletions

View File

@ -7,13 +7,15 @@
## I have a dependency which contains a "repositories" definition in its composer.json, but it seems to be ignored.
The [`repositories`](04-schema.md#repositories) configuration property is defined as [root-only]
(04-schema.md#root-package). It is not inherited. You can read more about the reasons behind this in the "[why can't
(04-schema.md#root-package). It is not inherited. You can read more about the reasons behind this in the "[why can't
composer load repositories recursively?](articles/why-can't-composer-load-repositories-recursively.md)" article.
The simplest work-around to this limitation, is moving or duplicating the `repositories` definition to your root
composer.json.
## I have locked a dependency to a specific commit but get unexpected results.
While Composer supports locking dependencies to a specific commit using the `#commit-ref` syntax, there are certain
caveats that one should take into account. The most important one is [documented](04-schema.md#package-links), but
While Composer supports locking dependencies to a specific commit using the `#commit-ref` syntax, there are certain
caveats that one should take into account. The most important one is [documented](04-schema.md#package-links), but
frequently overlooked:
> **Note:** While this is convenient at times, it should not be how you use
@ -22,3 +24,5 @@ frequently overlooked:
> before the hash. Because of that in some cases it will not be a practical
> workaround, and you should always try to switch to tagged releases as soon
> as you can.
There is no simple work-around to this limitation. It is therefor strongly recommended that you do not use it.