Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] Documentation: triangular workflow

["Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org>]

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
> Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
>
>> +TRIANGULAR WORKFLOW
>> +-------------------
>> +
>> +In some projects, you cannot push directly to the project but have to
>> +suggest your commits to the maintainer (e.g. pull requests).
>> +For these projects, it's common to use what's called a *triangular
>> +workflow*:
>> +
>> +- Taking the last version of the project by fetching (e.g.
>> +  **UPSTREAM**)
>> +- Writing modifications and push them to a fork (e.g. **PUBLIC-FORK**)
>> +- Opening a pull request
>> +- Checking of changes by the maintainer and, merging them into the
>> +  **UPSTREAM** repository if accepted
>> +
>> +
>> +........................................
>> +------------------               -----------------
>> +| UPSTREAM       |  maintainer   | PUBLIC-FORK   |
>> +|  git/git       |- - - - - - - -|  me/remote    |
>> +------------------       ←       -----------------
>> +              \                     /
>> +               \                   /
>> +          fetch↓\                 /↑push
>> +                 \               /
>> +                  \             /
>> +                   -------------
>> +                   |   LOCAL   |
>> +                   -------------
>> +........................................
>
> I agree with other commenters that "PUBLIC-FORK" is a name that does
> not capture the essense of the triangular being the next step
> forward, compared to the "central shared repository" workflow, to
> take advantage of the distributed nature of Git.
>
> "Where you push so that somebody else can fetch from there" does not
> have to be public.  You may be submitting a course assignment there,
> only to be seen by your professor but not by others in the class.
> Also, you do not your call "LOCAL" a "LOCAL-FORK" and that is a good
> thing.  In a distributed world, everything is a fork, so adding
> "-FORK" to a name is pretty much meaningless.
>
> So neither "PUBLIC" nor "FORK" in "PUBLIC-FORK" is a good word to
> describe this thing.
>
> The only reason you are pushing there is because your "LOCAL" is
> either not accessible from outside world, and/or you do not want to
> give a direct access to it (otherwise you could have allowed an
> access to whoever is going to fetch from you direct access to
> "LOCAL" and be done with it without creating "PUBLIC-FORK").
>
> That is why I reminded that we earlier in the design phase called
> this "publish"; it is a place you give access to others a selected
> work of yours that you choose to give them access to.

Given that clarification I'd be happier to go with it being one's 'Publish' 
repo.

My initial reticence was because of the association of "publish" with vanity 
publishing and other forms of over-sharing and self promotion.

A clarification/explanation that calling it a 'publish' repo is about 
granting access, and possible open access, would make it more acceptable.

> Whether you
> are a leaf contributor, a student who got stuck and wants to ask
> suggestions from your friends after looking your code over, or an
> integrator of a big public project, I would view the act to push
> into such a place you give selective visibility to your work to
> others as publishing your work.

Agreed, in that context.

--
Philip