[kragen]

No, it's a normal feature of Git. If I want you to pull my changes, I need to host those changes somewhere that you can access. If you and I are both just using ssh access to our separate Apache servers, for example, I am going to have to push my changes to a fork on my server before you can pull them.

And of course in Git every clone is a fork.

AGit seems to be a new alternative where apparently you can push a new branch to someone else's repository that you don't normally have access to, but that's never guaranteed to be possible, and is certainly very idiosyncratic.

[bregma]

> in Git every clone is a fork

That's backwards. In Github every fork is just a git clone. Before GitHub commandeered the term "fork' was already in common use and it had a completely different meaning.

[kragen]

As I remember it, it was already in common use with exactly the same denotation; they just removed the derogatory connotation.

[matrss]

Arguably the OG workflow to submit your code is `git send-email`, and that also doesn't require an additional third clone on the same hosting platform as the target repository.

All those workflows are just as valid as the others, I was just pointing out that the way github does it is not the only way it can be done.

[kragen]

Yes, that's true. Or git format-patch.