From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 16:54:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Triangular Workflow UI improvement: Documentation
Message-ID: <vpqporucl6g.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <A8FD6EF510F149A4A05FE553BEDD8511@PhilipOakley>

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

> From: "Matthieu Moy" <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
>>
>> I don't think you will find a name that fits all use-cases. IHMO, best
>> is to pick one rather general use-case, make the explanations for it,
>> and maybe explain somewhere that there are variants.
>>
>> If the fork is completely private, then your diagram with a "maintainer"
>> arrow from it to upstream is not valid.
>
> That's only true for a Pull Request workflow. For a Patch workflow
> (such as Git) the user's home vault can be completely private.

But then the maintainer is not the one picking changes from it (you're
sending them by email), so the "maintainer" label is not really accurate
in the diagram:

+------------               -----------
+| UPSTREAM |  maintainer   | ORIGIN  |
+|  git/git |- - - - - - - -|  me/git |
+------------       ←       -----------
+         \                   /
+          \                 /
+     fetch↓\               /↑push
+            \             /
+             \           /
+             -------------
+             |   LOCAL   |
+             -------------

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/