RE: [PATCH] doc: clarify triangular workflow - BENSOUSSAN--BOHM DANIEL p1507430

From: BENSOUSSAN--BOHM DANIEL p1507430  <daniel.bensoussan--bohm@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: ALBERTIN TIMOTHEE p1514771 <timothee.albertin@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>,
	"Michael Haggerty" <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>,
	MOY MATTHIEU <matthieu.moy@univ-lyon1.fr>,
	PAYRE NATHAN p1508475 <nathan.payre@etu.univ-lyon1.fr>,
	"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] doc: clarify triangular workflow
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 09:26:18 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1512638775790.32361@etu.univ-lyon1.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqwp24iah2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

>The document starts with

  >This document attempts to write down and motivate some of the
  >workflow elements used for `git.git` itself.  Many ideas apply
  >in general, though the full workflow is rarely required for
  >smaller projects with fewer people involved.

>and makes me wonder (note: I am not involved in writing any of the
>existing text in this document) how much material foreign to the
>actual workflow used for `git.git` should go in here.  Having
>multiple maintainers at the same time is not a workflow element that
>we have ever used, for example, so I am not sure about the change in
>the above paragraph.

We were told to change 'he' into 'they' to be neutral.  However, it's true
that there's one maintainer at a time so we will remove the 's' from
"maintainers". 

>> +TRIANGULAR WORKFLOW
>> +-------------------

>I really hate to say this.  Before I made comment on the last round
>that tried to add this section, I didn't read the original closely
>enough.

>The thing is, it does already cover the triangular workflow in the
>"Merge workflow" section (you may need to already know what you are
>reading to realize that fact, though).  The text in the existing
>"Merge workflow" section where requestor pushes to somewhere for the
>maintainer to pull from may not be immediately obvious, and it may
>be worthwhile to improve it, but I find it highly misleading to add
>an entirely new section as if it is describing yet another separate
>workflow that is different from anything that is already described
>in the document.  It is not.

>A replacement of the entire section (but I'd recommend keeping the
>"Merge workflow" title, which contrasts well with the other "Patch
>workflow" that follows), or a separate document that is referred to
>with "see that other one for a lengthier description" by the
>existing "Merge workflow" section, or somewhere in between, might be
>a more acceptable organization, though.

We'll take this into account.  We will create a new file called
"triangularworkflow.txt" just for the triangular workflow to be more precise
because "gitworkflows.txt" is a long file.  More, we first wanted to change
the doc to help new contributors. If we put all the triangular workflow
section in merge workflows, this won't be clear for a new contributor.

Thank you for the review.

Daniel BENSOUSSAN-BOHM