Re: Cleaning up git user-interface warts

From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 15, 2006, 11:28 UTC
Message-ID: <200611151128.57917.andyparkins@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20061115104858.GG5453@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk>

On Wednesday 2006 November 15 10:48, Karl Hasselström wrote:

> To me, "origin" just means "where <whatever we're talking about>
> originated". If you think of it that way, it's perfectly obvious that
> each repository can have its own origin.

Of course. I wasn't saying that I didn't understand why origin was chosen. It's not a completely crazy name - it does have /a/ meaning. However, it's not an unambiguous meaning. What if the repository I clone was itself a clone? What if the repository it cloned was pulling from three other repositories? What if those three repositories pull/push from/to each other?

  * -- * -- *
   \   |   / \
    \  |  /  /
     \ | /  / 
       *   /
       |  / 
       | /
       * <--- "origin"
       |
       * <--- cloned repository

The name "origin" is too close to having an "ultimate source" feel to it IMO. In a distributed system, it's not the right idea to be pushing. After the clone is complete, the "origin" is no more special than any other repository, and if you felt like it you could change the URL for "origin" and it would make very little difference to you.

In short: I don't think "origin" is wrong, I just think it's not right.

Andy

-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE