#6792 Rename f26-modularity to module-bootstrap-f26
Closed: Invalid 5 years ago Opened 6 years ago by jkaluza.

Hi,

as I stated in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6791, I would like to kindly ask rel-engs to rename f26-modularity tag to module-bootstrap-f26 to make its name clearer.

This tag has been always used to bootstrap the base-runtime module, which is later used as a base module for other modules. We originally did not have MBS in production and the "module-" prefix for modular tags has not been set in time when this tag has been created.

All the current modules now have the tag prefixed with the "module-" prefix and it would be practical to have this prefix also for the current f26-modularity tag. In modularity tools, we always check that we are running all the operations with "module-" prefixed tag to not break the non-modular tags and because of this single f26-modularity tag, we have to allow strange exceptions to that rule, which complicates the code.

Thanks in advance :)


While this is not blocking anything or anyone and is just about consistent tag naming (a module tag using the module prefix like all other module tags do), it's been over a week so it'd be nice to get some feedback.

This is not technically related to the linked #6791 for which I'll be filing an F27 Change Proposal; this is really just cosmetics.

I'm thinking about this now and I think we should still do that, but after F26 Beta. The robosignatory is now configured to sign f26-modularity and honestly I don't know if things will break if we do the rename.

I still want to have the rename to be done, but I want to have the opportunity to fix robosignatory in case things break, which is not a case in beta freeze now.

do we still need to plan to do something here?

@jkaluza is this still needed with all the other changes that have happened with modularity in the interim?

We have released F28 modularity so I'm under the impression this work is no longer needed as the root need was addressed to get F28 out the door. Please advise.

@sgallagh and @ralph confirmed my impressions were correct; closing as no longer needed.

Metadata Update from @kellin:
- Issue close_status updated to: Invalid
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

5 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata