On Aug 29, 9:20 am, Daniel Hommel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The logic behind the "Abort Build" feature is that an aborted build is a > failed build (it got aborted because it would have failed otherwise).
On Aug 29, 9:21 am, "Ross Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 08:47, JDAVIDI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The build has already started and must have a final status, > and builds either succeed or fail - there is no in-between state. Ah, OK, I accept these rationales; I was aborting in this case only because I wanted to force build another project in the same queue that someone was anxious to get. I can stick to the ccnet.exe process termination that I used throughout the 1.3 implementation for these types of situations. But the minor addition of a "failed due to [user] abort" to any published email/log definitely has my vote. Thanks as always for the quick insight! --jdavidi
