I’m using apache too. I have dozens of remotes and this follows the name pattern I use for other remotes.
On Tue 21 Apr 2026 at 09:23, Wei Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm also using "apache" for "apache/airflow". (but I use "upstream" for all > other projects...) Either way kinda works for me. like "apache" a bit more, > but I'm ok with "upstream". > > Best, > Wei > > Shahar Epstein <[email protected]> 於 2026年4月21日週二 下午2:52寫道： > > > Personally I'm used to "apache" as the upstream name, but I could live > with > > "upstream". > > > > > > Shahar > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 2:24 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > While preparing release documentation, I noticed that we use quite > > > different approaches for remote naming in various examples and > tutorials. > > > > > > Standardizing on those remotes would be easier for both new > contributors > > > and agents; currently, we have some instruction on how to find the righ > > > remotes. > > > > > > I would like to propose very simple approach: > > > > > > * *upstream* -> apache/airflow > > > * *origin* -> your fork > > > > > > We could add instructions for checking out and adding airflow to follow > > the > > > convention. This would also make our documentation more consistent and > > > agent-followable, reducing back-and-forth. > > > > > > And renaming remotes is easy - so would be quite easy for people to > > switch > > > (other than muscle memory). > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > >
