It probably wouldn't (unless the tool implements an algorithm similar to the Git algorithm that detects "move" rather than "delete" + "add"). But given that you could delete it in one revision and then add it back with a different name in a subsequent revision should it really be forbidden? As I said... a minor point! W.
> On 22 Jan 2016, at 16:38, Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > The changed submodule name looks like > a new name and the old submodule was deleted. > How does a tool determine it is some old submodule > but the name was changed? > > Andy > > > > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:33 AM, William Lupton <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Thanks for the responses. One clarification below on what is definitely a > minor point! > >> On 22 Jan 2016, at 00:18, Andy Bierman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:45 AM, William Lupton <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> > 2. Rules re changing submodule names >> > >> > Section 5.7 (Lifecycle Management) says that "The [...] submodule name >> > MUST NOT be changed, once the document containing the module or submodule >> > is published" but this might contradict RFC 6020 Section 11, which says "A >> > module may be split into a set of submodules, or a submodule may be >> > removed...". >> > >> > More specifically, 6020 doesn't mention renaming a submodule (so >> > presumably that's not permitted), but the mention of both splitting >> > modules into submodules AND removing submodules suggests that arbitrary >> > module/submodule refactoring is permitted. And if I'm being pedantic, >> > revision #1 could have submodule A1, revision #2 could remove it, and >> > revision #3 could reintroduce it as submodule A2, so that's effectively a >> > rename! >> >> I do not see any issue here. >> Moving an object does not change the submodule name. > > My point was to question why renaming submodules is forbidden when in fact it > seems that submodule rename can be achieved via other means. It's not that I > actually want to do it, just that 6087 and 6020 don't seem quite consistent > on this topic. > > William >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
