Ah, yes, that does make more sense. What kind of tasks are you running, where you want them to continue even if a command fails on one server? I'm curious what uses people are putting Capistrano to, besides those that I designed it for.
- Jamis On Jun 7, 2007, at 8:44 AM, Rob Holland wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
