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

[Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>]

Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org> writes:

> 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.  

In english, "downstream" and "upstream" are relative terms. If A is
upstream compared to B, then B is downstream compared to A.

In terms of Git, you know what your upstream is (i.e. where you get
commits from), but you don't necessarily know what your downstream is
(i.e. who pulls from your repository). So, "downstream" wouldn't make
sense in a config file.

> 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?

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).

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/