Trans,
A given Rakefile that works for single-threaded use does not contain
the information necessary, neither explicitly nor implicitly through
the application of any set of rules, to construct a j-safe graph.
Regards,
James M. Lawrence
*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.
···
On Sep 10, 12:38 am, "Martin DeMello" <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
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? Now
> 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.
Thomas Sawyer wrote:
*should*? How is one correct and the other not?
Because one assumes a dependency that is not explicitly declared. Rake
only guarantees execution ordering in the face of explicit dependencies.
-- Jim Weirich
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.