[Rake-devel] Rakefile optional when using a rake directory

Trans transfire at gmail.com
Tue Feb 26 07:52:03 EST 2008


On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Can I suggest you explain your goal a bit more?  Why do you want
>  things to work this different way?  People come to rake with the
>  expectation that it is like a Ruby Make, and has a Rakefile as a
>  result of that heritage.  Why is it good to break that metaphor?
>  You've explained how you would like things to work, but not why, or
>  how this would help Rake users in general in the future.  At the
>  moment I know to look for a ./configure, a Makefile, a Rakefile, or
>  a setup.rb in a downloaded ruby project.  This approach would give
>  me more things to consider to understand what is going on.

You make a good point. There is reason to think of Rake as Ruby Make,
it is where Rake has it's roots. But should we let that connection
hold Rake back from advancement? It doesn't seem the case since we
already have auto-loading of rakelib/ and now task arguments, two
features that Make (AFAIK) has no equivalent.

My reasoning for the suggestion is to further the principle of DRY.
Yes, it would mean adding one more item to your list of things to
expect, namely a rake/ directoy. But on three counts I suspect that's
not much to ask. Most of the time we already have a good hunch of when
a project will support Rake (almost any Ruby projects for instance);
documentation will likely inform us in anycase; and scanning for
"rake" is rather isomorphic to scanning for "rakefile".

The upshot is a cleaner project directory. Instead of, for instance,

  README Rakefile bin doc lib rakelib test

it's

  README bin doc lib rake test

Saving us the unecessary repetition, being more concise, and fitting
in more neatly with the other common project directories.

T.


More information about the Rake-devel mailing list