From: Jordan DE GEA Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2016 21:28:34 GMT Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Triangular Workflow UI improvement: Documentation Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > Matthieu Moy 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" 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.