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