Hilary James Oliver

Assigning you as first reviewer @oliver-sanders, since it is was your idea to get "start-up graphs" cheaply and safely by manipulating the runahead limit (and a fine idea it was).

@dpmatthews - > It would be much nicer if we could do something like: Haha, that was my original suggestion, albeit explicitly restricted to start and finish graphs - you...

Long story short, I also think this is better: ``` [[graph]] start = "prep" P1 = "foo" finish = "clean" ``` If you look at the description of #4903 that's...

> Or we could implement start and finish as special cycle points, but that requires patching all cycling interfaces to handle these special keywords. I was thinking along those lines,...

Superseded by #5090

> Note I would expect get_graph_raw to scale with the dependency density within the graph window evaluated, the number of tasks is just an easier metric. As I recall, `get_graph_raw`...

All good, except: > Block restart if the new Cylc version is lower than that of the previous run. Not sure about a total block. How about prompt the user...

Any reason not to post that commit as a PR?

I think we can close this as invalid, possibly after adding a warning to the documentation and improved validation. `foo` is not documented as [valid syntax](https://cylc.github.io/cylc-doc/stable/html/user-guide/writing-workflows/parameterized-tasks.html) and I'm surprised it...

Yeah that pattern is equally natural, but we made a choice between several possible syntaxes back when originally implemented. Supporting multiple syntaxes for almost the same purpose would be a...