> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote: > > A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet > > mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete > > roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed > > requirements. Or should we bail, for example, during ./Build test if > > there are any test_requires failures? Or continue as is and just let it > > fail when it tries to use the missing requirements? > > Continue. Nothing's more frustrating than a system which refuses to even > try to go forward when some checklist is incomplete.
Fail. Nothing's more frustrating than a system which fails with a strange error, when the real problem is listed somewhere in the scrollback buffer. Especially if the work done to get to that point takes time. I'd much rather # make all test Missing dependency: Test::Foo than # make all test Building ... <go get coffee, perhaps some of the tests that do run are quite time consuming, or the build process has a long compilation step> ... some failure message ... N