RE: [PATCH] doc: clarify triangular workflow

From: BENSOUSSAN--BOHM DANIEL p1507430 <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Dec 7, 2017, 09:26 UTC
Message-ID: <1512638775790.32361@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwp24iah2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

>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.

Show 6 quoted lines

>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.

We were told to change 'he' into 'they' to be neutral. However, it's true that there's one maintainer at a time so we will remove the 's' from "maintainers".

>> +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.

Show 9 quoted lines

>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.

Show 6 quoted lines

>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.

We'll take this into account. We will create a new file called "triangularworkflow.txt" just for the triangular workflow to be more precise because "gitworkflows.txt" is a long file. More, we first wanted to change the doc to help new contributors. If we put all the triangular workflow section in merge workflows, this won't be clear for a new contributor.

Thank you for the review.

Daniel BENSOUSSAN-BOHM