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

From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Jun 3, 2016, 22:16 UTC
Message-ID: <6C6F62CA4181453BA51BB362DAA5C0C1@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqd1nyqnr6.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>

Show 15 quoted lines

> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> You raise a good point here.
>
> To me, the git.git public repository that everybody pulls from is
> just like me/git for everybody else.  It is a place where you
> publish your work.  I think the @{push} notation during its design
> phase was once called @{publish} instead.

I'd agree that your git/git is actually an @{publish} repo, and to my mind is a formal 'downstream' for you.

However your gitster/git repo feels like it would match the me/git viewpoint, in that while it is 'open', it isn't really a formal publishing place. Certainly I don't think that I 'publish' what's in my personal github repos, which I use as an open backup (and any PR's I put to the G4W project repo are referenced from there).

I did have a look at various thesaurus words (//www.thesaurus.com/browse/repository) that might be usable and found:- depot, haven, shelter, sanctuary, wharf, bunker, vault, which are all 'near' but not quite right, if only home-depot wasn't taken I'd suggest that!

Show 12 quoted lines

>
> A "downstream" that is the opposite of "upstream" is not something
> you would configure and control.  They are those who call you
> "upstream".  You know and actively configure who your "upstream" is
> and pull from there.  You do not have direct control who are the
> people who are pulling from you.
>
> So in that sense, "downstream" exists as a concept that is just as
> valid as "upstream", but unlike "upstream", "downstream" does not
> manifest itself as something you explicitly tell Git about, either
> from the command line, in the remotes definition, or in the
> configuration files.

Certainly for contributors, a configured 'downstream' repo doesn't make sense, but I do think it's worthwhile for maintainers, Leiutenants, and dictators who do have a specific publishing place.