My description was meant to explain the proposal, but I got the explanation incorrect. Alexey provided a better explanation, >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.
Peter On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 07:47, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On 08 Jul 2003, peter reilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-07-08 at 16:06, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > >> What would you want to see happen with keep-alive enabled and > >> failonerror set to true on an <exec> task. What will happen if the > >> execution fails? > > > > In this the rest of the tasks in the target would not be run, and > > the next target would be started. > > OK, I shouldn't have spoken without reading the proposal then 8-) > > keep-alive to me doesn't imply skip the remaining tasks from the same > target when one task fails. To me it meant that all tasks would be > executed, even if a previous task had failed. > > What you describe might then be best covered by fail-on-error at the > target level. fail-on-error would be true for the tasks inside the > target, but the target itself would swallow the BuildException. > > Stefan > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
