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

>> 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.