On Fri, 2009-10-23 at 22:16 +0200, Hans Dockter wrote: > With the new incremental functionality our users will have now a lot > of output like: > > test UP-TO-DATE > > I think it would be cool to have no output for this at all (as a > default). Usually your only interested in what needs to be done and to > see what is work in progress.
Actually I like seeing this.
> Related to this are tasks that are just aggregators. It would be nice
> to exclude them in the output if the tasks they aggregate don't do
> anything (e.g. check, classes).
On the other hand ensuring that the sequence of tasks output matches the
users model of what is going on is better.
> The third catagory are task like the Copy task (e.g.
> processResources). We might be able to restructure them in a way that
> we could some in advance check whether something needs to be done or
> not (e.g. from input exists or not).
>
> I think all that would reduce noise and would make the real issues/
> warning more prominent.
The problem is that if task tags are not output that relate to the trace
of tasks and dependencies then the user model of activity is violated.
--
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder Partner
xmpp: [email protected]
Concertant LLP t: +44 20 7585 2200, +44 20 7193 9203
41 Buckmaster Road, f: +44 8700 516 084 voip: sip:[email protected]
London SW11 1EN, UK m: +44 7770 465 077 skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
