Gert: >> >> might as well say depends= don't count and always use <call if= force= > />.
>No, quite the opposite : use depends as much as possible, and only use the ><call> task when you want to re-execute the complete stack ... I think Jean's point was that since we can't know how our targets are going to get used (i.e. depend'd or call'd), we have to assume they will be called (i.e. their dependencies will be run more than once). My 0.02 is that the problem here is bigger than whether Jean's example can be recoded to work, but the fact that its not configurable -- not being able to say that a call task doesn't rerun dependencies means targets now cannot be written in isolation, but have to be written written in the context of their callers -- a nasty breach of encapsulation. So, despite the fact that I like the new behavior -- and feel that its a valuable feature -- by not making this configurable, NAnt is overall poorer for it. *Both* call and depends have their uses -- and call's usage is greater than simply wishing to reexecute a complete stack. Best, Bill William E. Caputo ThoughtWorks, Inc. http://www.williamcaputo.com -------- Are you sure? ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ Nant-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-users
