> From: Steve Loughran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I think try and catch are better than failonerror stuff; the latter
> means a lot more complexity in the individual tasks, which means more
> testing (or worse test coverage).
>
> So I am in favour of try/catch moving into core.
>
> If/then/
Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
This can be achieved with the task from antcontrib.
Take a look at it.
yes, that was what I was planning to do for now
I think it is becoming time for some of this very useful and
generic tasks to make its way into CORE.
What do people think? What antcontrib people t
Developers List
Subject: Re: adding success & failure to
I completely desire that, for long nested builds for
regression testing
makes life really easy to just send a build to run, and if fails, no
problem, keep going to the next build.
MAriano
Steve Loughran wrote:
I think I posted
enitez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 11 June 2003 00:35
> To: Ant Developers List
> Subject: Re: adding success & failure to
>
>
> I completely desire that, for long nested builds for
> regression testing
> makes life really easy to just send a build to run, and i
I completely desire that, for long nested builds for regression testing
makes life really easy to just send a build to run, and if fails, no
problem, keep going to the next build.
MAriano
Steve Loughran wrote:
I think I posted this last week, but it got lost
1. What do people think about adding
I think I posted this last week, but it got lost
1. What do people think about adding the ability to set properties if a
subant or ant call failed/succeeded. This lets me do complex things in
cruise control.
2. How best to do it?
Here is one example implementation
--
