Makes sense to me to use upstream and origin On 2026/04/21 12:19:55 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Good feedback :) I am glad to see it coming :). > > Just to be sure, standardizing isn't a "must"; for me it's really more of > avoiding ambiguities in the docs, and making manual and agentic > contributions. I am on a quest to cut every unnecessary corner of our > process to minimize time loss for individuals. > > We already had two iterations in our docs to guide agents on which remotes > to push to (mine [1] and Kaxil's [2]). Both guides would be basically > unnecessary, and I saw my agent struggling quite a bit and losing tokens > while figuring out what to do, so I thought it might be good if we > standardize. We also use different conventions in different parts of the > docs, so it an also confuse people. > > I personally used "apache" and "origin" so far, but I recently switched to > "upstream"/"origin," which made my agent's work and manual pushes > significantly easier (And I switched almost instantly). > > My proposal is to switch to "upstream" and "origin". > > For those using agents, we can add instructions for them to clean up the > setup if they see we do not follow the convention. The agent will then > propose a one-time migration to the new standard. > > J. > > [1] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62575 > [2] https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/62748 > > J. > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 11:12 AM Piyush Mudgal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I use upstream for apache/airflow and origin for personal forks as it's a > > pretty common github convention > > > > Best, > > Piyush > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 12:53 PM 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
