This is my mistake during reviewing @mprahl's PR. At that time I thought to reuse --module-name to provide repository name instead of introducing a new positional argument for the repo name. Unfornately I didn't realize that name could confuse people with the module build for Modularity. Sorry for that. To fix this confusion and improve the UX, I think following 3 items could be done

• Add back the repo name positional argument, look like fedpkg request-repo repo-name bug-id
• The new repository's name could be omitted. In which case, to extract repository name from bug's summary.
• I have filed #301 for adding new option --name and --namespace and deprecating --module-name. Educating people to use these new options to request new repository instead of --module-name.

@jcline @mprahl What do you think? Any other suggestions for the UX improvement? Thanks a lot.

@cqi @jcline we can use the Bugzilla bug to get the repo name but fedpkg still needs to accept a repo name parameter because not all repo requests have a Bugzilla bug (for instance, new module repos will no longer required a Bugzilla bug).

As for where the repo name parameter lives, I'd prefer it in the format fedpkg request-repo repo-name bug-id because then the parameter will show up in the help when doing fedpkg request-repo --help.

There could be an optional argument for the name, and it could try to extract the name from the bugzilla if no name was provided. If extracting the name fails they can be prompted to provide the optional repo-name argument.

That's approximately how the old pkgdb UI worked. It'd populate the field in the form, but you could edit it.

edit: This is assuming whatever CLI framework in use lets you do ^. If not, it's not a huge deal to just always provide the name.

@jcline +1

This has to start after https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/301

Commit f49b556 fixes this issue