ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@bost.de>
Subject Re: Wishlist of make like features.
Date Tue, 05 Sep 2000 12:01:46 GMT
>>>>> "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?

 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?

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

 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.

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.

Another point is that one might wish to control the logging level on a
task by task basis.

 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?

Stefan

Mime
View raw message