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

From: Jordan DE GEA <jordan.de-gea@grenoble-inp.org>
Date: Jun 5, 2016, 21:28 UTC
Message-ID: <F57B7CD2-8F8B-4D58-B145-285E69F9B4BE@grenoble-inp.org>
In-Reply-To: <vpqy46my05v.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

Show 12 quoted lines

> Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr> a écrit :
> 
> 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).

> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
> 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).

For Philip Oakley, PUBLISH seems to not be a good name. For PUBLIC-FORK, a fork can be private so I think that’s not a good idea.

As the third-place is the repository used to work on commits/patches, a simple name can be WORK_REPOSITORY.