On Tuesday 16 September 2008 21:46:13 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:26:31 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > Since the best solution to this exception is to finish that part of > > > the task which is not influenced by this error, I think the > > > expectation for this exception is clear. > > > > "Which is not influenced" - this is the crucial clause, the one that is > > fraught with error. Who is to say what "not influenced" actually means? > > A complete lack of any related dependencies is one workable way to > > scope it. It happens often enough that it's worth the effort to > > accommodate it. > > Isn't that exactly what --keep-going does, skips and packages that > depends on the failed package and merge the rest?
Yes, it does. The focus of my post was to highlight that it can be done, but is best done as an option, not as default. This thread is getting a tad complex, it's getting hard to tell if a specific post is talking about if --keep-going is even a good idea at all, or if it should be an option/default... -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
