From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] implement @{publish} shorthand Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:03:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20140109220351.GD32069@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20140108093338.GA15659@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20140108093716.GE15720@sigill.intra.peff.net> <02F63E901C46405BAAEEFBC48870A7C2@PhilipOakley> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Ramkumar Ramachandra , Git List , Junio C Hamano To: Philip Oakley X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 09 23:04:35 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1W1NiN-0003Ve-3N for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 23:04:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757730AbaAIWD6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:03:58 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:58036 "HELO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757692AbaAIWDx (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:03:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 9336 invoked by uid 102); 9 Jan 2014 22:03:53 -0000 Received: from c-71-63-4-13.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (71.63.4.13) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:03:53 -0600 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:03:51 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02F63E901C46405BAAEEFBC48870A7C2@PhilipOakley> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 08:39:44AM -0000, Philip Oakley wrote: > From: "Jeff King" > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:37 AM > >In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct > >@{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by > >default (if you typed "git push") to a different remote (or > >a different branch on the remote). > > One of the broader issues is the lack of _documenation_ about what > the 'normal' naming convention is for the uspstream remote. > Especially the implicit convention used within our documentation (and > workflow). > > This is especially true for github users who will normally fork a > repo of interest and then clone it from their own copy/fork. This > means that the 'origin' remote is _not_ the upstream. See > https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo In my case 'origin' is > my publish repo (as suggested by Github) while 'junio' is the > upstream (as do some others). There are similar results from the > likes of Stackoverflow. Sure, and I have done the same thing (though I tend to clone from the other person as "origin", and only fork my own repo when I am ready to push). But it shouldn't matter, should it? The whole point of the upstream config is that "git checkout -b topic junio/master" does the right thing, without caring about your naming convention. So I'm not sure what you think should be said (or where). Telling me in patch form is preferred. :) -Peff