Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org Received: (qmail 37188 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2003 22:07:11 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Mar 2003 22:07:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 18948 invoked by uid 50); 26 Mar 2003 22:09:02 -0000 Date: 26 Mar 2003 22:09:02 -0000 Message-ID: <20030326220902.18947.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org> From: bugzilla@apache.org To: dev@ant.apache.org Cc: Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 18391] - RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18391 RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant ------- Additional Comments From gus.heck@olin.edu 2003-03-26 22:09 ------- I agree with the current default. I can see utility in both directions. In my case I am willing to commit to being sure that the build file is there, because the target I am writing is for develop-time compiling of multiple packages that rely on a library (which I am going to edit and don't want to break). But when deploying a product it would be very bad to silently ignore a missing build file because the finished product that was deployed might come out broken. I think Dominique got it right, I just want the ability to loosen things up. hehe mid-aired... hmm the fileset solution does sound like it would work. I suppose that pushes my patch into the realm of syntax sugar... I kinda like it though because it suits how I think about the problem...