On Sep 10, 12:38 ¨Βν¬ ΆΝαςτιΔεΝεμμοΆ Όναςτιξδενε®®®ΐηναιμ®γονχςοτεΊ
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:13 PM, . <quixoticsycoph... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 7:32 pm, Martin DeMello <martindeme... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> A --file-order-implies-dependency flag might get us there in a lot of
> >> cases, though of course there's no general solution. Of more value
> >> would be a lint tool that helps convert a rakefile into parallelisable
> >> form.
>
> > But I thought we just agreed those two forms should be the same?  ¨Βοχ
> > you are proposing a flag which will make them different.
>
> They *should* be the same, but if we're discussing legacy rakefiles
> where people have implicitly relied on their being different...
>
> I agree that there's really no 'right' thing to do, though - either
> you've specified your depgraph properly or you haven't.

*should*? How is one correct and the other not? They are just
different behaviors. Ie. rake is the same as drake -j1.

The problem is that drake -j2 or more can royally screw a Rakefile not
written for it. Thus the "fix" is to remain backward compatible but
add a syntactical distinction for j-ready tasks. Then there is no
problem.

T.