ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From peter reilly <peter.rei...@corvil.com>
Subject Re: [Patch] keep-going feature
Date Wed, 09 Jul 2003 11:57:20 GMT
My description was meant to explain the proposal,
but I got the explanation incorrect. Alexey provided
a better explanation,
>Actually the reason to implement keep-alive (originally keep-going) is
to
>find as many problems as possible. It is done by executing all targets
that
>do not depend directly or indirectly on failed targets. It is not
>fail-on-error flag - the build will still fail.

Peter
 
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 07:47, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 08 Jul 2003, peter reilly <peter.reilly@corvil.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 16:06, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> 
> >> What would you want to see happen with keep-alive enabled and
> >> failonerror set to true on an <exec> task.  What will happen if the
> >> execution fails?
> > 
> > In this the rest of the tasks in the target would not be run, and
> > the next target would be started.
> 
> OK, I shouldn't have spoken without reading the proposal then 8-)
> 
> keep-alive to me doesn't imply skip the remaining tasks from the same
> target when one task fails.  To me it meant that all tasks would be
> executed, even if a previous task had failed.
> 
> What you describe might then be best covered by fail-on-error at the
> target level.  fail-on-error would be true for the tasks inside the
> target, but the target itself would swallow the BuildException.
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message