ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject DO NOT REPLY [Bug 21665] - <fail> should stop the build even with "keep-going"
Date Wed, 16 Jul 2003 23:17:26 GMT
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=21665>.
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=21665

<fail> should stop the build even with "keep-going"





------- Additional Comments From stevel@apache.org  2003-07-16 23:17 -------
I am starting to worry about this. 

Assuming keepgoing makes sense, then its ok to have a simple rule of 'we ignore
targets that fail  in keepgoing mode'. But now we are saying 'but when some
targets fail they are special and should stop the keepgoing from continuing'. 

Who decides which actions break keepgoing, and which dont? You clearly think
<fail>  is -and always will be- special. But what if (as I often do), the <fail>
is merely a validation that some condition meets the requirements of a target,
or validation that a task completed successfully. In these use cases, well, if I
ask for keepgoing then I would expect to keep going.

Are we going to have to have a special tag on fail to say "this is so important
it always fails"? How are we going to stop other tasks from throwing
FatalBuildExceptions?

IMO we either dont have a keep-going rule, or we have one that it simple and
consistent: no getout clauses, not even a little one.

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


Mime
View raw message