Find a better name for "subtasks"

[Bertrand Rousseau]

"Subtask" does not convey enough the idea of prerequisite. It just tells people it goes "under" the related task, but the semantic of "under" is not defined clearly anywhere, nor suggested. This leads to confusion since people don't necessarily interpret subtasks as being prerequisite tasks that are necessary to achieve to reach to its parent's task completion.

[Bertrand Rousseau (bertrand-rousseau)]

Before changing *anything* in the code, we must first find a better wording here. So solving this bug is actually more about having a discussion here.

[Nimit Shah (nimit-svnit)]

How about 'prerequsite' ?

[David Snider (davic)]

I think a better idea is to have two distinct concepts:
Projects and Tasks

Projects can contain other projects but tasks are always leaf items on the tree.

[Gianluca Sangiovanni (poono)]

What about Activities and Tasks?
An Activity is often a prologed task made of multple steps(Tasks).

But the better solution in my opinion would be to not use different names (or even different implementation) for complex or simple tasks.
There is no need to.
A Task is a Task.
Users could jot down their todo list and then, if needed, they can split the complex ones in subtasks, subsubtasks and so on

[Stuart Laverick (slaverick)]

I agree, a task is a task. Especially as 'sub-tasks' can have sub-tasks of their own, so we would end up with sub-sub-tasks and so on.

The relationship should if needs be, be defined in terms of the parent task, but otherwise a task is a task. After all the tasks can be re-arranged such that a sub-task can become a full task at any time. I think it should just be a task, and it can have a child-parent relationship with any other 1 task.