Re: [RFC/PATCH] Triangular Workflow UI improvement: Documentation

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

From: "Matthieu Moy" <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
> Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org> writes:
>
>>> Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr> a écrit :
>>>
>>> That is technically correct, but to illustrate the overall flow, I'd
>>> rather avoid naming the repositories in terms of git commands. If you do
>>> so, you will probably end up with tautological explanations like this
>>> later in the text: "FETCH_REMOTE is the remote from where you fetch,
>>> PUSH_REMOTE is the remote to which you push, and LOCAL is local".
>>>
>>> I suggested PUBLIC-FORK earlier, and didn't get any feedback on it. I
>>> think it translates the intent better than PUSH_REMOTE. An alternative
>>> would be PUBLISH (= the repository you use to publish your changes so
>>> that the maintainer can pick them).
>>
>>> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>>> However your gitster/git repo feels like it would match the me/git
>>> viewpoint, in that while it is 'open', it isn't really a formal
>>> publishing place. Certainly I don't think that I 'publish' what's in
>>> my personal github repos, which I use as an open backup (and any
>>> PR's I put to the G4W project repo are referenced from there).
>>
>>
>> For Philip Oakley, PUBLISH seems to not be a good name.
>> For PUBLIC-FORK, a fork can be private so I think that’s not a good idea.
>
> I don't think you will find a name that fits all use-cases. IHMO, best
> is to pick one rather general use-case, make the explanations for it,
> and maybe explain somewhere that there are variants.
>
> If the fork is completely private, then your diagram with a "maintainer"
> arrow from it to upstream is not valid.

That's only true for a Pull Request workflow. For a Patch workflow (such as 
Git) the user's home vault can be completely private.

>  It needs at least to be visible
> to the maintainer. "public" may be a bit strong as you don't need to
> make it "public" to everyone on earth, but to me that's OK to describe
> the use-case.
>
>> As the third-place is the repository used to work on commits/patches,
>> a simple name can be WORK_REPOSITORY.
>
> "WORK" is already used to describe "worktree" which is precisely not
> this repository. I don't "work" on my public fork, I "work" locally and
> then just send commits there.
>
> -- 
> Matthieu Moy
> http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>