Although it's probably too late now, I would actually have suggested the other way around: this new method should be called seq() and the existing one should be called seqContinueOnFailure() or something to that effect, as I'm pretty sure most users expect the fail-fast behavior when executing sequences to be the default (cursory poll of some colleagues confirms this suspicion).

Think of it this way: using seq() pretty much automatically means there's _some_ kind of dependency between the tasks, otherwise why not just use par() instead?