I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use `airflow` and `origin`? ________________________________ From: Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 4:24 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [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. 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?
