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

[Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org>]

> From: "Jordan DE GEA" <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org>
>> This document attempts to help you configure a Triangular Workflow.
>> +Here is an example of configuration:
>> +
>> +........................................
>> +------------               -----------
>> +| UPSTREAM |  maintainer   | ORIGIN  |
> 
> UPSTREAM and ORIGIN are two different types of description. Origin being a too generic Git name that is used multiply elsewhere.
> 
> That said, trying to find a good name for that 'third place' is not easy. It's neither upstream, nor downstream (for Junio - the maintainer special case - git.git would be his downstream). The me/git repo is like a ferryman's landing across the other side of the river flow, a safe harbour if you will.
> 
> Finding a suitable name has all the same issues as deciding the generic public name for the staging area / index. The ability to have a second perfect copy is very new - historically all the dictionary names relate to copies or forgeries (you could only have one master - DVCS breaks that mould). Perhaps (poorly) "MyFork", or "MyServer". There maybe a good French word we can use.
> 


You’re right, finding a good name is not easy. 
Firstly, I wanted to use DOWNSTREAM and UPSTREAM. But git doesn’t make the difference between those words.  

Looking for the description of the third place, I wrote that it’s the remote used to push modifications. 
Assembling the main words push and remote, it creates PUSH_REMOTE which seems a good name. 
e.g. That’s clear to say "I push to the push_remote".   

As the option `branch.<branch>.pushRemote` exists, a little text has to be added in order to prevent confusion. 
By the way, in the documentation, confusions will be avoided by using `branch.<name>.pushRemote` and ‘push_remote`.

Like PUSH_REMOTE, the remote where we fetch can be called FETCH_REMOTE. 
e.g. That’s clear to say "I fetch from fetch_remote". 

Do you agree?


> 
>> +------------       ←       -----------
>> +         \                   /
>> +          \                 /
>> +     fetch↓\               /↑push
>> +            \             /
>> +             \           /
>> +             -------------
>> +             |   LOCAL   |
>> +             -------------
>> +........................................
>> +
>> +CREATE YOUR REPOSITORY
>> +----------------------
>> +The first step is to create your own repository. To do that you can:
>> +
>> +- a. fork (e.g. GitHub) the main project (e.g git/git), or
>> +- b. create an empty repository
>> +
>> +a. Fork the project
>> +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> +Go to the repository of the project (e.g. git/git) you want
>> +and fork it.
> 
> As I understand it one issue is to clearly suggest that it is best to fork and then clone from your me/fork project such that the origin and it's fetch/push are set up the easiest way.
> 
> If the user clones the main project before forking and then tries to add the me/fork there are more hoops to jump through to get all the fetch/push settings re-arranged (this does depend on the Github fork method, but at least the issue of which repo is cloned should be noted)
Thank you, I will work on it.