Look into bash and forking; because the you can 'join' after all the forking action and return an overall success or failure to cap before it moves on.
On Nov 8, 2011, at 11:44 AM, Brian Carpio <[email protected]> wrote: > The only problem with that is although these 20 tasks aren't dependent on > each other the next cap jobs need to wait for them to finish before they can > run. I guess I can write in logic in cap to check the status of the jobs that > where put into the background, make sure they are finished then run the next > cap job. > > Brian > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Lee Hambley <[email protected]> wrote: > So leverage the power of your shell, you can run() something and pass the > appropriate nohup/background command to ask your shell to run it in the > background, which will leave cap free to move on to the next run() command, > etc. > > - Lee > -- > * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Capistrano" group. > * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en > > -- > * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Capistrano" group. > * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en -- * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Capistrano" group. * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en
