I really hope this makes sense and someone can help as I'm pretty new to Github.
I'd like to start work on a project that has been forked from a repo. The forked version is more UI based (it's now focus on one platform only) . The problem is that the original project has had a fork that updates the engine behind it. The UI is too far along to merge but I think I can hack out the old engine references and add the new forked engine.
Am I able to fork the UI update and then somehow link to the fork of the original(forked) repo?
i.e new repo:
./
/original(forkedENGINE)/
/original(forkedENGINE)/files
/original(forkedUI)/
/original(forkedUI)/files
/new files
or is it work we just forking one and copying the engine or UI over?
It is better to:
fork the originla repository (that way, you keep a link to the target repository you want to contribute to)
add as a remote the project URL that has been forked from the original repository
fetch from it and start hacking, using the original repository codebase as your current code, and importing/merging the bits you need from the project
push and make PR to the original repository.
Related
Normally I get the project easily to github, but now that the project base has been cloned so I can't push it to my own repo for some security reasons.
I cloned project base using the terminal command
git clone https://github.com/username/project.git
Can anyone help with this? or link to a page where a solution can be found?
If I understand your question, I think you are looking to fork? If so, you will want to fork the original repo, and then clone your fork of it.
If that isn't what you are looking for, my next guess is you want to make the original project a dependency in your personal project. In which case, the solution will depend on your specific tech stack.
I have forked a public Github repo using the Mac GitHub Desktop client, so I can make some changes and submit them.
I have got my fork into a total mess (I am not used to working with forks) and want to start over, but I cannot find a way to tell the client my repo should track the original repo rather than my fork... it seems irrevocably bound to my fork.
How can I get the client app to forget I have a fork?
I'll put up what I found by trial and error, but someone might have a better way:
I basically deleted my repo (form) on Github, and automagically the GitHub client showed my local repo now linked to the original repo again. I was able to go through the process of creating a fork all over again with my changes.
I use an open source project to host a site (OrchardCMS) which is available in a GIT repository via CodePlex. I have made a few customizations to the source code that are specific to my implementation and I want to keep preserved and under source control. However the challenge arises when there's a new release of the source engine.
My changes certainly won't go into the blessed repository everyone uses.
Currently I'm using two repositories. I use the CodePlex OrchardCMS repository to get the latest changes from the engine the community uses (and that I contribute some bug fixes to).
I then have my own copy which contains my changes. For this, I am using my own source control (hosted TFS from Microsoft). When an update to the core engine comes out, I XCOPY all the files from the current source to my self-maintained repository and commit them to my project.
However this seems like there should be a better option. Any opinions?
You can use git to have an alternative solution.
You can clone the git main repo and keep it updated with the new relases, and you can keep your local modifications, that aren't to be shared with anyone, on a local branch.
When a new release came out, you simply update your master branch in your git repo an then you can rebase or merge your local modications on top of it.
I'd like to manage the GitHub wiki for my project at the same time as I'm developing the code. For example:
Branches
master (stable versions)
develop (development of next version)
Others... (Possible other dev / feature branches)
Ideally, I'd like the wiki to be contained in a subfolder (e.g. /wiki) of the project. Then when I'm making changes to the code I can also update the wiki as the same time (code + documentation change). It'd also mean that all my development code and documentation would be self-contained in the "develop" branch until I merge with the "master" branch. Hopefully, even if via a manual process, the GitHub wiki would then be updated after the merge with master to reflect the changes.
I've taken a look at Git's submodule feature, but from what I understand that usually points at a single revision. I'd like to somehow follow my code development so branching and merging would work as normal.
As explained in "True nature of submodules", you can make modifications and updates within a submodule, as long as you commit also the parent repo in order to record the new state of your "wiki" sub-repo.
If you intend to use Gollum to display and work on your GitHub wiki while it's on your local machine (you probably should), then you will have a trouble if you use submodules.
Gollum wants to do local commits to your local Git repository (but not pushes), but in a submodule .git is actually a file containing the local repository, not a true Git repository. This causes Gollum to break.
Submodules also have the problems that the versions aren't coupled to the parent repository, and they aren't completely de-coupled. It a nuisance to have the source code repository to want to push the new wiki version number (but not the wiki contents) every time you make a documentation change.
The solution I use is simply to clone the wiki repository into a directory inside the main project directory and add it to .gitignore. By using a consistent name for the directory across projects (e.g. github-wiki), the chance is minimized that the wiki won't be in .gitignore and gets accidentally uploaded into the main repository.
For consistency, his approach also works well for GitHub pages, although it's unnecessary as they don't experience the problem with Gollum.
I'm trying to set up EGit with Eclipse and I've used neither of them before. I understand the basics around Git and Eclipse is more or less just another IDE. The problem I'm having is setting up a reasonable work environment.
I have file-server at home which I want to use as a Bare repository which I push and pull changes to. To test it out I've done the setup locally.
I have a bare repository created through the Git Repository perspective.
I've cloned that repository into a local non-bare repository.
I've created a project in a subdir of the non-bare repository (is this the way to go? Is it possible to do have the project directly in the workspace with the .git folder within it? So far I've had a lot of trouble with it when trying to create an Eclipse project out of it. What is the proper way to do it?)
I've made some changes to this cloned repository and added the indexes, committed the changes and attempted to push the changes to upstream.
The thing is that no changes are made to upstream. Would someone like to explain the procedure in doing the push so that I'm not misunderstanding something? Or am I completely wrong on utilizing a bare repository instead of just working non-bare?
As mentioned in this tutorial, you create your Git repo right where your project is (ie your .classpath and .project files are).
Pushing to a bare repo is a good idea (see the links mentioned in "Git - pull & push - production server")
You need though to specify what you want to push:
Click at least on "Add all branch spec".