From: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:42:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Support triangular workflows
Message-ID: <CALkWK0=fOxuWvXKL4fQ9cd0Rs2S71_9GB=eP8PXbwk_+Ke8wtQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7v7gkz8nyf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> Shouldn't Documentation/gitworkflows.txt also be updated with the
>> triangular workflow and its configuration?
>
> What is missing from gitworkflows documentation is actually a
> non-triangular workflow, where people pull from and push into the
> same central repository.
>
> The "merge workflow" part in the "distributed workflows" section
> teaches:
>
>  * fetching others' work from <remote> and merging it to yours;
>  * publishing your work to <remote>; and
>  * advertising your work.
>
> and it is written for the triangular workflow.
>
> Two triangles are involved.  The maintainer may pull from you but
> pushes to her own, which is one triangle, and you pull from the
> maintainer and push to your own, which is another.
>
> As to your suggestion, I do think it is reasonable to clarify these
> triangles with an illustration, and to even add descriptions for
> short-cut configurations as a side note.

I think the gitworkflows document should be rewritten with focus on
setting up remotes and configuration variables for specific workflows.
 Once these are set up, pushing/ pulling (git pull is currently
broken, although I'm working on fixing it) should Just Work.  To push
to a different remote/ refspec, the user can read the manpage of git
push/ git pull.  A workflow is about setting up good defaults that
work 90% of the time with no additional effort.