"Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@xxxxxxx> writes:
> That said, trying to find a good name for that 'third place' is not easy.
> It's neither upstream, nor downstream (for Junio - the maintainer special
> case - git.git would be his downstream). The me/git repo is like a
> ferryman's landing across the other side of the river flow, a safe harbour
> if you will.
You raise a good point here.
To me, the git.git public repository that everybody pulls from is
just like me/git for everybody else. It is a place where you
publish your work. I think the @{push} notation during its design
phase was once called @{publish} instead.
A "downstream" that is the opposite of "upstream" is not something
you would configure and control. They are those who call you
"upstream". You know and actively configure who your "upstream" is
and pull from there. You do not have direct control who are the
people who are pulling from you.
So in that sense, "downstream" exists as a concept that is just as
valid as "upstream", but unlike "upstream", "downstream" does not
manifest itself as something you explicitly tell Git about, either
from the command line, in the remotes definition, or in the
configuration files.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html