scs@xxxxxxxxxx (Steve Summit) writes: > The terms "upstream" and "downstream" are heavily used in much > writing about git, with obvious meanings and implications for > those who use git regularly, but they're not defined at > https://git-scm.com/docs/gitglossary . Perhaps they should be? > (Sorry, I'm not nearly experienced enough with git yet to write > good definitions myself, though.) Yup, 'upstream' has clear definition and we use the phrase a lot. 'downstream', not that much, primarily because your repository may have its upstream (singular) but typically you may not even know the set of people who consider your repository their upstream. Having said that, there isn't much we can actually say about 'upstream' as a unversal truth, no? I can readily think of this: Your upstream is the line(s) of history you base your development on. but beyond that, there aren't much that is common across different workflows how 'upstream' appears to you. Sometimes you may ask your changes to be pulled by it, sometimes you may directly push into it while others like you who consider it their upstream do the same. So...
