Indeed.

I think something about this approach -- of triggering a task-within-a-task via a conventional naming scheme -- is a little bit unsettling to me. I want to let it simmer a little while to try to figure out why I feel that way. It actually surprised me that "deploy" was defined as a grunt task at all (as opposed to some arbitrary code that runs via the CLI), but now that I've already followed through reading it and thinking of how I'd adjust the configuration, it seems to make sense.