Hi, I never liked submodules. IMO just more IETF over-engineering. They have always confused customers into thinking they are just modules within modules. Wrong. They merely partition YANG modules into multiple syntactic bundles. There is only 1 module namespace.
Actually I think it doesn't matter if the submodule name changes, so I should remove the text in question. One can remove all the submodules from rev N to N+1 if they want, and add different names back (as you pointed out). If it doesn't change the module namespace contents it's OK. Andy On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:16 AM, William Lupton <wlup...@broadband-forum.org > wrote: > 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 <a...@yumaworks.com> 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 < > wlup...@broadband-forum.org> wrote: > >> Thanks for the responses. One clarification below on what is definitely a >> minor point! >> >> On 22 Jan 2016, at 00:18, Andy Bierman <a...@yumaworks.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:45 AM, William Lupton < >> wlup...@broadband-forum.org> 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 netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
