[Chris]

Jason,

I think our different views result from the fact that we seem to use action groups differently. You want to use them as de facto subprojects, while I use them strictly as flow-of-control structures for action dependencies. I'm not saying that one or the other is correct, or better, but I think it illustrates some of the awkwardness in the current design of OF. Action groups currently inhabit this funny dual space where they are not truly actions (context mode objects), nor are they truly projects (planning mode objects), they are some of each. (My earlier suggestion, in the "How action groups SHOULD work" thread was to turn them completely into action-like objects; clearly people who want them to be project-like didn't like that!) I'm not sure there is a real resolution to this dilemma in the current paradigm, though as you and Curt mention, having the option to auto-complete action groups is one possibility, and I have asked for that myself.

But even in the paradigm I am asking for, you could still avoid open loops by adding a "Make sure there are no open loops" action to the end of each of your action groups :-).