Same here — I've been using "apache" for apache/airflow (and my other Apache projects) and "origin" for my fork, but I'm fine with the proposal. The agent argument is convincing enough, and renaming a remote is a one-liner.
+1 on upstream/origin. On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 10:53 PM Jens Scheffler <[email protected]> wrote: > I am fully OK with Jareks proposals. Use it the same. (But would be okay > with "apache" as well but the rationale with Agent is a good point!) > > On 21.04.26 21:32, Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > You are not on ASF mailing lists - you know nothing about bike-shedding > :) > > > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Ferruzzi, Dennis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> In the end, we're all free do use whichever we prefer for our own > >> environments and we are bikeshedding a doc change. I appreciate > whichever > >> you decide to standardize the docs on, Jarek. > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Vincent Beck <[email protected]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:31 AM > >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > >> Subject: RE: [EXT] [DISCUSS] standardizing fork names for Airflow > remjotes > >> > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > >> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and > know > >> the content is safe. > >> > >> > >> > >> AVERTISSEMENT: Ce courrier électronique provient d’un expéditeur > externe. > >> Ne cliquez sur aucun lien et n’ouvrez aucune pièce jointe si vous ne > pouvez > >> pas confirmer l’identité de l’expéditeur et si vous n’êtes pas certain > que > >> le contenu ne présente aucun risque. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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] > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
