From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B6BA20954 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 06:36:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752059AbdLCGgp (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:36:45 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57962 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751790AbdLCGgo (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:36:44 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E548B6C4B; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:36:43 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=2DYUwnNIJih/AG567rx1gxK29mg=; b=Xjt8ti 6kRs0Rst1Xj4DrK1IAPknwB17JxPw0UUJUyP3mli+l0+WegPLpWEXH5WSqxoAURq MVnnsECu9YxZnwbCXj1+MtLWfNGBJ3HRJaEIr25+kNh7TDGIqIdPjePQ/sLR5bzS 2h9OhzHH1xC0s/3MKcyDcuec0ARI/YurefyN0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=v5bvnBO1DAzjKh5VOy370kbOACQjGZ2K JN9y7ByB3xQx2FnDrhxkb5FAka48EI7D5K3I9Xp1eCF1ca9dS+xQ+QZ8nwrBlEog 6i+igckNU08IThd1SYq0Hgv2G/mpFVZRSznQqox/kc4CAuujClAOthWVPyD/kM4q uy5Ovpb4f/0= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74F4CB6C4A; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:36:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C206AB6C46; Sun, 3 Dec 2017 01:36:42 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Timothee Albertin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Timothee Albertin , Michael Haggerty , Matthieu Moy , Daniel Bensoussan , Nathan Payre Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: clarify triangular workflow References: <1512034932-14499-1-git-send-email-timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 22:36:41 -0800 In-Reply-To: <1512034932-14499-1-git-send-email-timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> (Timothee Albertin's message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:42:12 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 535AF29A-D7F4-11E7-AAAD-8EF31968708C-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Timothee Albertin writes: > diff --git a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt > index 02569d0..21f6dc8 100644 > --- a/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt > +++ b/Documentation/gitworkflows.txt > @@ -407,8 +407,8 @@ follows. > `git pull ` > ===================================== > > -Occasionally, the maintainer may get merge conflicts when he tries to > -pull changes from downstream. In this case, he can ask downstream to > +Occasionally, the maintainers may get merge conflicts when they try to > +pull changes from downstream. In this case, they can ask downstream to > do the merge and resolve the conflicts themselves (perhaps they will > know better how to resolve them). It is one of the rare cases where > downstream 'should' merge from upstream. The document starts with This document attempts to write down and motivate some of the workflow elements used for `git.git` itself. Many ideas apply in general, though the full workflow is rarely required for smaller projects with fewer people involved. and makes me wonder (note: I am not involved in writing any of the existing text in this document) how much material foreign to the actual workflow used for `git.git` should go in here. Having multiple maintainers at the same time is not a workflow element that we have ever used, for example, so I am not sure about the change in the above paragraph. > +TRIANGULAR WORKFLOW > +------------------- I really hate to say this. Before I made comment on the last round that tried to add this section, I didn't read the original closely enough. The thing is, it does already cover the triangular workflow in the "Merge workflow" section (you may need to already know what you are reading to realize that fact, though). The text in the existing "Merge workflow" section where requestor pushes to somewhere for the maintainer to pull from may not be immediately obvious, and it may be worthwhile to improve it, but I find it highly misleading to add an entirely new section as if it is describing yet another separate workflow that is different from anything that is already described in the document. It is not. A replacement of the entire section (but I'd recommend keeping the "Merge workflow" title, which contrasts well with the other "Patch workflow" that follows), or a separate document that is referred to with "see that other one for a lengthier description" by the existing "Merge workflow" section, or somewhere in between, might be a more acceptable organization, though.