> I'm fine with whatever, and not trying to bikeshed, but why not use `airflow` and `origin`?
Because both are technically airflow :) . Upstream is pretty unambiguous. On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 1:31 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >
