refactor: reduce redondant module names #12585
Open
+30
−34
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Ambre Austen Suhamy <[email protected]>
Alizter
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
Alizter
reviewed
Oct 17, 2025
|
Can you push an extra commit with the other renamings? I want to see the issue that we get. |
Signed-off-by: Ambre Austen Suhamy <[email protected]>
Done. As expected, everything breaks |
|
@ElectreAAS In this case shouldn't |
|
@ElectreAAS You should be able to rebase on #12607 in order to continue. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Split off from #12580, it's a simple renaming of modules
Rpc.Rpc_stuff -> Rpc.Stuff.For example,
rpc/rpc_ping.ml*have been renamedrpc/ping.ml*, but I couldn't do that torpc/rpc_build.mlandrpc/rpc_common.mlbecause they would conflict with files of the same name inbin/.This conflict is unexpected, according to discussions we've had in the team. #12478 should have fixed them if I understood correctly.