Philip Oakley wrote:

On 01/06/2021 17:35, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

Philip Oakley wrote:

quoted

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.

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.

quoted

quoted

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