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

Jim Weirich jim.weirich at gmail.com
Wed Feb 27 09:38:26 EST 2008


On Feb 25, 2008, at 6:54 AM, Trans wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Jim Weirich  
> <jim.weirich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:19 PM, Trans wrote:
>>> But of course that's not what I'd like to have either. It's isn't as
>>> useful that way --if I have a Rakefile it's a fairly simple mater of
>>> loading other rake scripts by hand, and I can conditionally control
>>> that if I want too. I'd like it so the Rakefile itself can be done
>>> without.  (Plus I don't like the name rakelib --all my other
>>> directories are 3-4 charchters long --picky I know ;-)
>>
>> Use -R to change the name of rakelib to whatever you want.  If you
>> want to get rid of the Rakefile itself, create an empty file  
>> somewhere
>> convenient and use the -f option to specify it.  And since you
>> probably don't won't to type all that stuff out, create a small alias
>> or batch file for it.  All the tools are there.
>
> Would it help if I said, "Please"?

As I understand it, there are two requests here.

(1) Change the name of rakelib to rake (or maybe just added rake in  
addition to rakelib?)
(2) Allow the omission of the Rakefile if rake (or rakelib?) is present.

On (1), I am disinclined to change the name of rakelib (or add  
additional redundant functionality) in the absence of a compelling  
reason to do so.  I believe the reason you assert if merely a  
preference for the shorter name, correct?

On (2), this is a more interesting proposal.  I'm not sure I would use  
the feature myself, but if there is a wider desire amoung rake users  
for this, I might consider it.

Fair 'nuff?

-- 
-- Jim Weirich
-- jim.weirich at gmail.com






More information about the Rake-devel mailing list