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

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.

Rather you typically have a publish/backup repo instead (semi-public,
semi-private - few are interested ;-).

That (can't push one way around the triangle) part of the flow is
separate from the distinction between patch flows and merge (Pull)
request flows.

E.g. My personal Git repo can be triangular with both git.git and
git-for-windows, plus a few (what I view as) fetch-only repos from other
collaborators/maintainers beyond the triangular 'golden' upstream repo.

I often consider GitHub as a centraliser, but I don't think it's what is
being considered above.

--
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..

--

Philip