Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-55884-apmail-ant-dev-archive=ant.apache.org@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 7248 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 16:12:21 -0000
Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12)
  by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 16:12:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 79734 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2004 16:12:15 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-ant-dev-archive@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79400 invoked by uid 500); 26 Feb 2004 16:12:13 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dev-subscribe@ant.apache.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@ant.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@ant.apache.org>
List-Id: "Ant Developers List" <dev.ant.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@ant.apache.org
Received: (qmail 79384 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2004 16:12:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO exchange.sun.com) (192.18.33.10)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Feb 2004 16:12:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 6580 invoked by uid 50); 26 Feb 2004 16:12:37 -0000
Date: 26 Feb 2004 16:12:37 -0000
Message-ID: <20040226161237.6579.qmail@nagoya.betaversion.org>
From: bugzilla@apache.org
To: dev@ant.apache.org
Cc: 
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 27219]  -
    <fail> in an <imported> macro outputs wrong
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.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
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27219>.
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=27219

<fail> in an <imported> macro outputs wrong





------- Additional Comments From j_a_fernandez@yahoo.com  2004-02-26 16:12 -------
I do not think this is necessary. I think the current behavior is completely 
fine. Can someone give me a good example why changing this will make ANT 
better in some sense? 

What is the behavior when the failure occurs inside <subant> or <antcall>?
Don't we get the same stack trace as we do for <macro>?

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