On 2011-12-26 at 01:25:53 [+0100], Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 25, 2011 at 03:15, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2011-12-24 at 16:45:29 [+0100], Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > In a bit, I'll be updating InvokeSubJam to $(JAM:E=jam) -q > >> > > -j$(JAMJOBS:E=1) $(COMMAND_LINE) ; > > > When you start jam with n jobs, you'll get up to 2 * n - 1 jobs in total. > > This does of course depend on when the sub-jam is started. > > Oh. I didn't consider that. Hmm... should I revert this then? I'm not sure. I suppose in this case one would rather want to have extra jobs than only a single one. A comment to that effect would be nice, though. CU, Ingo