From: Chris Torek <chris.torek@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2026 05:58:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Triangular workflow
Message-ID: <CAPx1Gvdpyfcioot5V9Q8=Yg-aPSPeVKaE4Z2_Xt3-SZ2WhVMog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <56D0BADB-43C8-4E93-A871-6E6B11B59DCF@gmail.com>

(I'm somewhat behind all week so this is from Wednesday...)

Re: status.compareBranch (or similar): I like the idea; I'm not sure what sort
of details might be needed in the end though.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 1:42 PM Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com> wrote:
> I favor something similar to what Junio described but also including @{push} by default (and ignoring it if non-existent), so that folks discovering triangular workflows for the first time are easily able to see what is happening.

This also seems to me likely to be the right default. It's useful for a lot of
GitHub and similar forges, where you send fixes upstream by first forking
some official repository and then cloning your fork (e.g., to a laptop), setting
up your local clone (on laptop) to have two remotes: the official repository,
and your fork, both on the same forge.

It's a little annoying to have to deal with *three* potential
"upstream" repos, if
you need to back up your local work to a corporate server or forge *plus*
a push-for-pull-request at the forge as well, of course. But then at least the
"compare with all three" option becomes available. How you wish to spell
the default push location is then up to you :-)

Chris