Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] doc: push: explain default=simple correctly

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Philip Oakley wrote:
> On 01/06/2021 17:35, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Philip Oakley wrote:
> >> On 01/06/2021 13:12, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>> So it's more like:
> >>>
> >>>   centralized = ~decentralized
> >>>   triangular = ~two-way
> >>>
> >>> A centralized workflow consists of a single repository where branches
> >>> are typically two-way, but not necessarily.
> >>>
> >>> A decentralized workflow consists of multiple repositories where
> >>> branches are typically triangular, but not necessarily.
> >>>
> >>> So the triangularity is per branch, not per repository, and same_repo
> >>> means a two-way branch, could be a centralized or decentralized
> >>> workflow.
> >> My personal viewpoint is that triangular flow happens when you cannot
> >> push to the repo you consider as upstream.
> > It's not about permissions. Even if I had permissions to push to git.git,
> > I wouldn't do so. I do have permission to push to some public projects, but I
> > instead send patches/pull requests like everyone else.
> 
> I had it that if you don't have permissions then you definitely need to
> use a Triangular flow. Hence how I was presenting the view.

If you don't have permissions you have no option but a triangular flow.

If you are in a triangular flow that doesn't necessarily mean you don't
have permissions.

> >> A thought did come to mind that a Git serve/repo (typically bare) should
> >> be able to offer a 'refs/users/*' space (c.f. refs/remotes used by
> >> individual users) that allows a type of 'centralised' operation (almost
> >> as if all the users used a common alternates repo). Users could only
> >> push to their own /user refs, but could pull from the main refs/heads,
> >> and their own refs/users/ space.
> >>
> >> This would give flexibility to smaller corporate central operations to
> >> offer 'triangular flow' where each dev would feel like they have their
> >> own 'push' repo, when in reality it's really personalised branches. As
> >> usual the authentication of user names being handed off elsewhere;-). It
> >> could avoid some of the --alternate management aspects.
> >>
> >> It's a thought..
> > Yeah, and interesting thought. But it demonstrates what I said above:
> > you can have a central repository, and yet have triangular branches:
> 
> I see triangular being about repos, rather than branches.

If you have a feature-1 branch that fetches from origin, rebases onto
origin/master, but pushes to origin/feature-1...

Does that qualify as triangular?

-- 
Felipe Contreras