| 1 |
On Tuesday 16 September 2008 21:46:13 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:26:31 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Since the best solution to this exception is to finish that part of |
| 4 |
> > > the task which is not influenced by this error, I think the |
| 5 |
> > > expectation for this exception is clear. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > "Which is not influenced" - this is the crucial clause, the one that is |
| 8 |
> > fraught with error. Who is to say what "not influenced" actually means? |
| 9 |
> > A complete lack of any related dependencies is one workable way to |
| 10 |
> > scope it. It happens often enough that it's worth the effort to |
| 11 |
> > accommodate it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Isn't that exactly what --keep-going does, skips and packages that |
| 14 |
> depends on the failed package and merge the rest? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, it does. The focus of my post was to highlight that it can be done, but |
| 17 |
is best done as an option, not as default. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This thread is getting a tad complex, it's getting hard to tell if a specific |
| 20 |
post is talking about if --keep-going is even a good idea at all, or if it |
| 21 |
should be an option/default... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives