Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 270 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2000 13:57:20 -0000 Received: from c000-h000.c000.snv.cp.net (HELO c000.snv.cp.net) (209.228.32.64) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 14 Aug 2000 13:57:20 -0000 Received: (cpmta 26625 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2000 06:56:44 -0700 Received: from c18765142.telekabel.chello.nl (HELO marcellt2) (212.187.65.142) by smtp.schutte.com (209.228.32.64) with SMTP; 14 Aug 2000 06:56:43 -0700 X-Sent: 14 Aug 2000 13:56:43 GMT From: "Marcel Schutte" To: Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:56:49 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I like the second option as well. But then the concept of really hiding targets is gone, you can't base that on the presence or absence of a description attribute or can you? A reaction to Conor: my intended use for the -targets flag is to supply a quick reminder to users of the build file. So I only want to include toplevel targets in the list. People who do maintenance on build.xml should open it up anyway, -targets is not for them. Regards, Marcel Schutte > -----Original Message----- > From: Siberski, Wolf [mailto:Wolf.Siberski@tui.de] > Sent: maandag 14 augustus 2000 15:36 > To: 'ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org' > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Suggestion for new commandline switch -targets > > > If you want to mark targets as 'end-user' targets, > you should explicitly mark them. > Marking the tasks you don't want to show > is counter-intuitive and error-prone > (you may forget to mark a 'private' target, > or you may not update your existing build files). > > As a plus, with KC's approach you could > only publish targets by adding an explanation > to them. :-) > > What are the advantages of the 'private' flag? > > Wolf