> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> > A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
> > mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
> > roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
> > requirements. Or should we bail, for example, during ./Build test if
> > there are any test_requires failures? Or continue as is and just let it
> > fail when it tries to use the missing requirements?
>
> Continue. Nothing's more frustrating than a system which refuses to even
> try to go forward when some checklist is incomplete.
Fail. Nothing's more frustrating than a system which fails with a strange
error, when the real problem is listed somewhere in the scrollback buffer.
Especially if the work done to get to that point takes time. I'd much rather
# make all test
Missing dependency: Test::Foo
than
# make all test
Building ...
<go get coffee, perhaps some of the tests that do run are quite time
consuming,
or the build process has a long compilation step>
... some failure message ...
N
