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

Philip Oakley wrote:

On 01/06/2021 13:12, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

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.

It's more about ownership. In my personal repositories I can push
whatever I want, but on shared repositories I have to be more careful.

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.

I think it's not separate, that is the thing that makes a triangular
flow triangular: the flow of patches goes through a different repository,
and then they get picked and merged into the upstream one.

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.

GitHub is all about pull requests, you fork a repository, you push your
branch into that personal fork, and then you request a pull from
upstream.

That's triangular.

--
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:

 feature-1 <=  origin/master
            => origin/felipec/feature-1

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras