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=18391>. 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=18391 RFE: ignoreMissingBuildFiles option for subant ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-03-26 22:09 ------- I agree with the current default. I can see utility in both directions. In my case I am willing to commit to being sure that the build file is there, because the target I am writing is for develop-time compiling of multiple packages that rely on a library (which I am going to edit and don't want to break). But when deploying a product it would be very bad to silently ignore a missing build file because the finished product that was deployed might come out broken. I think Dominique got it right, I just want the ability to loosen things up. hehe mid-aired... hmm the fileset solution does sound like it would work. I suppose that pushes my patch into the realm of syntax sugar... I kinda like it though because it suits how I think about the problem...
