On 26/06/2012, at 6:36 PM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 27/06/2012, at 11:23 AM, Luke Daley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/06/2012, at 5:38 PM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 26/06/2012, at 10:34 AM, Luke Daley wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/06/2012, at 12:59 PM, Adam Murdoch <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/06/2012, at 12:38 AM, Luke Daley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seeing more and more that people are manually executing tasks, for
>>>>>> usually understandable reasons and we talked about this earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> This person should be using dependsOn for the problem below. It's a
>>>>> straight-ahead dependency, in particular given that they want to make the
>>>>> result of the filtering available to other tasks.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, which makes it worse as this person has no indication that they
>>>> should do this.
>>>
>>> Do you mean no indication at runtime?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> There are, of course, a bunch of tutorials and samples and other docs that
>>> show you how to chop up your logic into tasks and wire them together. But
>>> that doesn't seem to have helped in this case.
>>
>> Right, which I don't think is surprising.
>>
>> For me, the only real issue here is that this is a "feature" we will break
>> because it's not a feature in the first place, but users may not see it that
>> way.
>
> I think this has become a feature, whether we like it or intended it. We
> should deprecate it before we remove it (with a replacement, of course).
Fair call.
This is the kind of "hole" that's hard to spot in advance, but we should be
mindful of similar situations going forward and close them if necessary.
