On 6/7/07, Jamis Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I follow. Both a failed connection and a failed command > cause Capistrano to abort. How is the final result any different? > Your post didn't give much in the way of a use case--could you > explain a bit more here? I'm curious to know how you're using this.
Sorry, I see it makes little sense without context. We also wrap execute_on_servers so that if a host fails one command, we mark that host but continue, skipping that host for future commands. Our use case requires that as many servers get as far as they can as possible, rather than aborting a task if one host fails. We'd rather as many as can complete do, and we tidy up failures afterwards. Does that make things clearer? I can share our code for the changes in exception handling and host skipping if that helps, but it's in the form of monkey patches as the connection one is, not proper capistrano patches, so that it's very obvious to us what we've changed. Thanks, Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
