Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

cmd-build: Rename OSTree commit object #517

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 16, 2019
Merged

cmd-build: Rename OSTree commit object #517

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/write-commit-object
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -22,5 +22,5 @@ r.open(None)

[_, rev] = r.resolve_rev(args.rev, True)
[_, commit, _] = r.load_commit(rev)
with open(args.builddir + '/ostree-commit', 'wb') as f:
with open(args.builddir + '/ostree-commit-object', 'wb') as f:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will backcompat be a problem if we wholly rename it? Or is the idea to change the usage of the commit object entirely in #515?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ahh OK, so this is not used elsewhere in cosa, but is used internally in the RHCOS pipeline to prepare for the next build. So yes, the code there would have to be slightly tweaked for the rename once RHCOS inherits these changes. Though I'd like to also upstream that S3 prep logic into the buildprep command to abstract all this.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, thanks for confirming my thoughts. I'm OK with this change regardless; we can limp along with rhcos-4.1 for a while (at least until OpenShift 4 GA). 😉

f.write(commit.get_data_as_bytes().get_data())