I'm just now hearing the terminology "triangular workflow" (I may live under a rock), but that aptly and succintly describes the workflow I was attempting to simplify with my initial configuration. I read the article on your blog, and the solution you propose makes sense to me, at least in the context of triangular workflows. I don't see any public feedback on your patch; bummer to see. Is it something you've brought up since 2014? -- Ben Denhartog ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 19:31, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:29 PM Ben Denhartog <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I have a few repositories on my system that exist primarily as local copies of remote repositories, in that I normally just want to track and follow the upstream project (however, I periodically contribute back upstream so they are technically forks -- origin is my remote, upstream is theirs). > > Otherwise known as a triangular workflow, for which in my opinion git > doesn't have good support. > > I wrote about it in my blog [1], and I wrote the patches to properly > support that mode [2]. Unfortunately they were not merged. > > Cheers. > > [1] https://felipec.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/git-triangular-workflows/ > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/git/1398023106-25958-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx/ > > -- > Felipe Contreras >
