From: Jordan DE GEA Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 11:53:58 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Triangular Workflow UI improvement: Documentation Message-ID: <83EF9DDB-34AB-4E91-A516-955DA1CC7AF9@grenoble-inp.org> In-Reply-To: >> 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). PUBLISH sounds good. I take it for the next patch.