"Philip Oakley" <[email protected]> writes:
> From: "Jeff King" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 9:37 AM
>> In a triangular workflow, you may have a distinct
>> @{upstream} that you pull changes from, but publish by
>> default (if you typed "git push") to a different remote (or
>> a different branch on the remote).
>
> One of the broader issues is the lack of _documenation_ about what the
> normal' naming convention is for the uspstream remote. Especially the
> implicit convention used within our documentation (and workflow).
Sure, let's start trying to come up with what the eventual
documentation patch may want to say.
* The "upstream" is the place the updates by the project-as-a-whole
(including others' work but also your previous work) come from.
It is what you use "git pull [--rebase]" to integrate the work on
your current branch with in order to keep it in sync with the
outside world. Such a repository (often called "origin", and
"git clone" sets it up for you) may be called "upstream
repository".
Each of your branch would often have a single branch in that
repository (e.g. "master", which you locally use the
"origin/master" remote-tracking branch to keep track of its most
recently observed state). In the simplest case, you clone from
your "origin", you get your own "master" branch, which is set to
integrate with the "master" branch at the "origin". Their
"master" (i.e. what you view as "origin/master") would be the
"upstream branch" for your "master" branch.
For a branch B, B@{upstream} names the remote-tracking branch
used for the upstream branch of B. For example, to fork a new
branch 'foo' that has the same upstream branch as your branch
'master' does, "git checkout -t -b foo master@{upstream}" can be
used.
* If you and others are using the same repository to advance the
project, the repository you cloned from, i.e. your "upstream
repository", is the same repository you push your changes back
to. There is no other repository you have to worry about.
In such a "centralized" setting, it is likely that you may want
to update one of three possible branches at the upstream
repository when you push your changes back, if your local branch
is named differently from its upstream branch. Either:
(1) You started working on a topic (e.g. your "fix-bug-2431"
branch) based on an integration branch (e.g. "master" at the
upstream, i.e. "origin/master" to you), and you want to
publish it so that others can take a look at it and help you
polish it while it is still not suitable for the integration
branch. As long as you gave a name to that topic branch that
is descriptive and good enough for public consumption, you
would want it to go to the same name (e.g. you would want to
push to "fix-bug-2431" branch at the upstream repository from
your "fix-bug-2431" branch); or
(2) You are working on your copy (e.g. your "master" branch) of
an integration branch (e.g. "origin/master" to you), and you
want to update the "master" branch at the upstream
repository.
(3) There is another possibilty, in which you are working on a
topic forked from an integration branch (as in (1)), and are
done with the topic and want to push the result out directly
to the integration branch. Your "fix-bug-2431" branch may
have started from "origin/master" and "git pull [--rebase]"
on the branch would integrate with "master" branch at the
upstream repository, and your "git push" on the
"fix-bug-2431" branch will update that "master" branch at the
upstream repository, which makes it look symmetric.
The default in Git 2.0 will allow you to do (2) without any
further set-up, and you can start living in the future by
setting push.default to "simple". Your current branch, when you
run "git push", and its upstream branch must share the same
name.
If you want to do (1), you would want to set push.default to
"current". Your current branch, when you run "git push" may not
have an explicit upstream branch (hence "git pull" without any
other argument may fail), but the work on your branch will be
pushed to the branch of the same name at the upstream
repository.
For (3), you would set push.default to "upstream". Your current
branch, when you run "git push", must have an explicit upstream
branch specified and you must be pushing to the upstream
repository for this to work for obvious reasons.
* If you originally clone from somewhere you cannot (or do not want
to even if you could) push to, you would want your "git push" to
go to a repository that is different from your "upstream". In
such a "triangular" setting, the result of your work is published
to your own repository (we'd call it "publish"), and others
interested in your work would pull from there to integrate it to
their work. Among these other people there may be somebody who
integrates work by all relevant people to the project mainline
and updates the repository that you and other project participant
all call their "upstream", and that is how you see your own work
back in your "upstream".
Set remote.pushdefault to name the repository that is your
"publish" repository if you are using such a triangular workflow
(you could use branch.*.pushremote to publish to different
repositories per branch).
Your local branch in such a triangular setting will have its
"upstream" (the repository your "git pull" goes to and one of its
branches it integrates with) and its "publish" (the repository
and one of its branches your "git push" updates). Like the way
B@{upstream} can be used to refer to the former for your local
branch B, B@{publish} can be used to refer to the latter.
In such a "triangular" setting, it is likely that you may want to
update the branch of the same name in your "publish" repository.
If you have been working on your "fix-bug-2431" branch, you would
want the result to go to "fix-bug-2431" branch there.
The default in Git 2.0, when a triangular workflow is used by
setting remote.pushdefault (or branch.*.pushremote), will push
the current branch to the branch of the same name, so you do not
have to do anything further. You can start living in the future
by setting push.default to "simple".
The "upstream" setting of push.default would not make any sense
in such a triangular workflow, so your "git push" will error out
when you push to a repository that is not your "upstream" while
the push.default is set to "upstream".
* At the conceptual level, anybody who treats the work you publish
as his or her "upstream" is your downstream, but because you do
not control and keep track of who clones and pulls from you,
there is no such notation as @{downstream}.
It is unfortunate that GitHub worked aroud the lack of "publish"
concept not by adding it to Git, but by introducing "fork" at the
server side, which ends up twisting the concept of "upstream" that
is sets up by "git clone".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
