On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Alexey Solofnenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually the reason to implement keep-alive (originally keep-going) > is to find as many problems as possible. It is done by executing all > targets that do not depend directly or indirectly on failed > targets. It is not fail-on-error flag - the build will still fail.
OK, I agree that we are talking about different things, then. keep-going seems a better name, not sure whether it is the best possible name (I've always been extremely bad with names and Ant has suffered from this several times 8-). I'm fine with the revised implementation as well. I'd print the exception's stack trace with a debug or even verbose loglevel in the catch block for those exceptions that will not be rethrown, though. Maybe <ant>, <subant> and <antcall> (<*ant*>?) should get a new attribute as well? Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
