ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Nordlund <peter.nordl...@lentus.se>
Subject Re: Wishlist of make like features.
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2000 15:29:39 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "PN" == Peter Nordlund <peter.nordlund@lentus.se> writes:
> 
>  PN> * 1.  make -k: Keep going when some targets can't be made.
> 
> If more than one target is specified on the command line or in the
> more general case?

I thought in the more general case. If I remember right that is what
make does.

> 
>  PN> * 2.  make -n: Dry-run. Don't actually run any commands; just
>  PN> print them.
> 
> What kind of output would you want, the names of the targets, the
> names of the tasks or the names and attributes of all tasks?

I thought of the same output as if the commands actually were executed.
So that you could combine this option with -verbose and -quiet.

> 
> Printing some kind of command line like make does is not appropriate
> for many builtin tasks.
> 

- Ok, what I would like to have is mainly the "verbose" info for
the tasks, without all the stuff about properties settings.

>  PN> I find it a bit difficult to control the amount of output that I
>  PN> want from ant.
> 
> I remember some of your points have been addressed before, only other
> things have always gained a higher priority.
> 

- Yes, there are other stuff that has highere priority.

> It seems we need a logging level between INFO (what you see when you
> don't specify a command line switch) and VERBOSE (what you get when
> you say -verbose). Or the other way around, add an -extraverbose
> switch and lower the priority of most VERBOSE output to EXTRAVERBOSE.

Maybe -verbose could take a numerical argument? 
 
> Another point is that one might wish to control the logging level on a
> task by task basis.

Yes, maybe as I suggested (although I wrote property when I meant
attribute): 
with an attribute to the task e.g.
<javac verboselevel="4" .......

 
>  PN> When I run ant in the following style: ant compile > /dev/null.
>  PN> I think that a build failure should show up on stderr, but as it
>  PN> is made today, the build failure goes to stdout i.e. to
>  PN> /dev/null.
> 
> What would you expect if you say
> 
> ant compile -logfile /dev/null
> 
> My feeling is that there shouldn't be any output sent to stdout or
> stderr if the user specifies -logfile. If the user doesn't (i.e. all
> normal messages are sent to stdout) we could write the exception stack
> traces and everything logged with priority ERR to stderr. What do you
> think?

I agree with you, I think that your suggestion is good.

Regards,
Peter

Mime
View raw message