I believe this was already discussed before. If the on fail target fails, it would have a "on fail" that is as simple as possible, such as a one liner that echos "fatal error"...
I believe the original example posed had a cascading a series of on fail targets, each with less work (less likely to fail) and each expressed increasing severity of the nature of the failure(s). Glenn McAllister wrote: > > Scott Sanders wrote: > > > If the target fails, then the onfail target is executed, simple as that. > > What am I missing about your -1? > > And what happens when the on fail target fails? What if the on fail target > has dependencies? What happens if they fail? > > I agree that as a concept, having an onfail target seems like a good idea. > In practice, it could get *very* ugly. > > Glenn
