Hi @ibrasho. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

/hold

Not sure we should rename the directory, it's going to make a lot of work for anyone actually using it and the lint error doesn't warrant that much work from others IMO

The package name has to change from artifact_uploader to artifactuploader, so unless the users already use an alias they have to update thier code (even if the path is the same).

I think it's also going to change the name of the output binary, etc ... I am just not convinced it is worth it.

it is quite un-golike to name a package like it currently is. there's no reason we can't put the binary as the same name in the built images anyhow.

It is, but asking me to redo deployment specs and scripts and whatnot because go lint complains is a little frustrating. If you want to come refactor all that for me ... ;)

It is, but asking me to redo deployment specs and scripts and whatnot because go lint complains is a little frustrating. If you want to come refactor all that for me ... ;)

if we symlink it you won't need to redo anything ...

/shrug

IMHO maybe we can improve the way of deployment if we are worried about renaming packages.

/ok-to-test

/uncc

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ibrasho
To fully approve this pull request, please assign additional approvers.
We suggest the following additional approver: fejta

If they are not already assigned, you can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @fejta in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

@ibrasho: PR needs rebase.

How about we continue publishing the old image with the old binary name (in addition to the new one) but otherwise move the dir?

Sure, if there are no user-facing changes that seems fine

@stevekuznetsov : Sure, if there are no user-facing changes that seems fine

Can we define the scope of user-facing changes? Since we renamed the package, I'm not sure we are still behind that boundry. 😁

Sure. As an administrator of a Prow cluster, I want to never know this change happened. That means:

• no changes in location for the binary
• no changes in name for the binary
• no changes in name for the image
• no changes to any deployment YAML

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle stale

@ibrasho: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun them all:

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/lifecycle rotten

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.
Reopen the issue with /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh with /remove-lifecycle rotten.

Send feedback to sig-testing, kubernetes/test-infra and/or fejta.
/close

@fejta-bot: Closed this PR.