Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > >>>>> "PN" == Peter Nordlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
I thought in the more general case. If I remember right that is what make does. > > 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? I thought of the same output as if the commands actually were executed. So that you could combine this option with -verbose and -quiet. > > Printing some kind of command line like make does is not appropriate > for many builtin tasks. > - Ok, what I would like to have is mainly the "verbose" info for the tasks, without all the stuff about properties settings. > 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. > - Yes, there are other stuff that has highere 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. Maybe -verbose could take a numerical argument? > Another point is that one might wish to control the logging level on a > task by task basis. Yes, maybe as I suggested (although I wrote property when I meant attribute): with an attribute to the task e.g. <javac verboselevel="4" ....... > 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? I agree with you, I think that your suggestion is good. Regards, Peter
