what I want to do is the exact opposite of what people normally do.
I want to create GitHub issues that apply only to a particular branch I'm currently working on. Ideally, they would not be visible when browsing other branches of the repo. Even more ideally, they would only be visible to the repo owner (me).
To give a little more context, I'm working on the next version of a rather large macOS app, and the new issues I want to create would only be relevant to this new version, not to the master branch (old app version). That is why I want these issues to only be associated with a specific branch, not with the repo as a whole.
I know that I can associate an issue with a "project" or "milestone" but I'm looking for something different.
Any ideas ? Thanks.
This is not possible. Issues are repository wide. You can add in the title or body of the issue that it is for a specific branch. Or you can use labels saying what branch it is for. You can also make a branch for the issue (if you have write access to the repository) differentiation it even more. And for when the PR is made you can link it.
Related
I am trying to learn about git/GitHub workflow. I'm on branches, and learning about the different typical branch name prefixes. I've read several of the key articles.
If I name a branch issue-*, you can correspond that to an existing issue in the GitHub issue tracker by adding its number, like issue-32, is that right?
Is this number only for the developer's own tracking, or does it actually get associated with the issue, such that the branch somehow appears linked on the issue?
If a topic branch named like issue-32 does form an association with the issue, would other conceivable topic group prefixes do the same? Ie. If you were storing a feature note as issue 76, does branch feature-something-76 make any association with it?
Thinking it through, am I wrong to think that a branch could be associated with an issue? Is it, rather, that you associate commits with issues? And, if that's the case for issue-*, it's also the case for feature-*?
Ie. Should I only ever be referencing issue numbers in a commit message, eg. "Fixes issue #32" (and is there any particular nomenclature required beside use of the integer?)?
This answer shows GitHub, only a few weeks ago, introduced a new feature to create a new branch from an existing issue. But that's a) the other way around from my question and b) from the web (not sure how I'd do this in VS Code). Also seems like the linkage only happens upon a pull request.
Is it possible to create new branch directly from Issue which is posted on Github? We have project hosted on Github with many issues, it would be easy for us just to click one button in Issue web interface and create new branch for it to start developing.
This is not possible directly from the issue interface. I can try to provide you some workarounds and maybe start a debate why one would want this feature:
Creating branches directly on the web interface
After you've noticed that you need to start working on an issue you can just go to the repository main page (keyboard shortcut gc) and create a branch with the name you want:
Chrome extensions
If this is a must for you, you can create a chrome extension that augments the UI and creates a branch directly from the Issues WebUI using the GitHub API. There's a lot of open source extensions that augment the default WebUI.
Is it the most efficient way to start a new feature?
I think this changes from developer to developer, but having worked with GitHub for 7 years using Issues I've never felt the need for this feature because unless it's a one line change that doesn't require local testing or compilation, I still want to get down to my command line and IDE. If I have to do that, I still have to at least git fetch to get the branch I just created directly through the issue interface. If that's the case I've always preferred to just look at the issue and run git checkout -b branch-name, optionally with git push if my team needs to see the branch.
Then the issue name wouldn't normally translate to a branch name, at least I wouldn't want that. So that option to create a branch from an issue would probably need to spin out a prompt to allow me to name the branch what I wanted.
This is just my personal opinion and nothing else, hope it helps :)
GitHub finally added this feature request to their roadmap.
Summary
The branch is the first thing a developer creates when the start
working on a new issue. Creating that association makes it really easy
for someone to then follow the work happening and keep everything
connected as they take their idea to code.
Intended Outcome
We want to help developers get started on work faster and signal to
their team where to find the code changes related to an issue. It
should also be really easy to then follow development to the pull
request without the user needing to do additional work to link
everything together.
How will it work?
From the issue page, a user can quickly create a branch with an
auto-generated or custom name that becomes associated with the issue.
They can then fetch the branch and switch to it in their development
environment and further development changes (such as commits and pull
requests) are automatically associated with the issue.
https://github.com/isaacs/github/issues/1125
Nope. You can subscribe this issue.
You could accomplish this by creating a small script.
I'd start by leveraging the Issues Event webhook. This will fire a JSON payload every time an issue is opened. When the webhook fires, your script can then create a new branch using the Create a Reference API endpoint. Note: URL must be formatted as heads/branch, not just branch.
There is an app that automatically creates branches for issues. You can install it here for free: https://github.com/marketplace/actions/create-issue-branch
If you want to create the branches manually instead of automatically:
It does not enable you (directly) to click on create branch from the issue. Instead you would have to write a comment in the issue consisting of: /cib. If you do that, it automatically creates the branch from the issue.
Please note I have no affiliation with the app.
Recently I saw that Github finally added this feature to its Issues Panel.
All you have to do is navigate to an Issue on Github and scroll down to the following section:
I've got my first repo that people are interested in contributing to, but I'm totally lost on how to set up the repo so that it respects the Git Flow methodology I've been using while coding by myself.
What do I need to set up? Should I set the default branch to develop instead of master? Do I just need to instruct contributors that they need to use Git Flow and please create their feature under feature/, and submit PRs that way?
Okay the following are my personal thoughts and others might have different ideas :)
I always set the default branch to develop.
I manually do the PR's from github.
I select command line instructions in the PR and download the patch.
I create a feature branch myself, apply the downloaded patch, check the work and fix things if needed (code styling for example), and finish the feature.
Like I said, others might have different ideas about it, but this works for me.
Nearly every issue I file on gh refers to code on a particular branch. Does github have any mechanism to link an issue to the branch?
I need to filter issues by branch, so I am not distracted by issues in other feature branches.
Is there a way to do this? I know milestones can be (ab)used to reach a similar effect, but things get really confusing when the branch becomes a pull request and it shows up as another issue.
References
Often times issues are dependent on other issues, or at least relate to them and you’d like to connect the two. You can reference issues by typing in a hashtag plus the issue number.
Hey #kneath, I think the problem started in #42
Issue in another repository? Just include the repository before the name like kneath/example-project#42.
One of the more interesting ways to use GitHub Issues is to reference issues directly from commits. Include the issue number inside of the commit message.
By prefacing your commits with “Fixes”, “Fixed”, “Fix”, “Closes”, “Closed”, or “Close” when the commit is merged into master, it will also automatically close the issue.
References make it possible to deeply connect the work being done with the bug being tracked, and are a great way to add visibility into the history of your project.
Since March 2022, you can:
Create a branch for an issue
You can now create a branch directly from an issue to begin development work that's correlated to that issue.
Branches connected to an issue are shown under the "Development" section, which has replaced "Linked pull requests", in the sidebar of an issue.
When you create a pull request for one of these branches, it is automatically linked to the issue.
For more information, see the documentation.
Here is an animated image showing how a branch is created for an issue.
After creation, the linked branch is shown in the Development section:
The OP asked:
I need to filter issues by branch, so I am not distracted by issues in other feature branches.
It is still in public beta, but the new Development section can help you list branches associated to issues:
So for any issue you need to work on, create a new branch:
Use labels to organize issues. They aren't inherently branch-specific, but you could make a tag for each branch if that is how you want them organized.
When you have admin access to the repository, there should be a button called 'manage labels' on the issue page. That will let you add, modify, or delete labels. You can apply labels to issues a few different ways. One way is to open the issue and click the labels button just to the right of the main body of text for the issue. Once you have created a label, it will appear on the left just above the manage labels button. You can click on each label to view all the issues that have been marked with that label.
I am new to Perforce and find it really hard to follow its workflow..
I have used Mercurial before (not in any advanced ways), but what I lack most in Perforce is the idea of named branches.
Let me explain what I'd like to do:
I get the latest revisions of all files and want to work on a new feature/story/task..
I create a brach, say "Feature 3021"
I code, save changes in this branch (hg commit)
I can save changes to a central server (hg push)
When I'm done coding, I merge the changes from "Feature 3021" with the main branch (default, master, etc.) - after that the main branch has the code I wrote
I can close the named brach ("Feature 3021") so that further commits are not possible.
I don't need this exact behavior in Perforce, but something analogous. I know that Perforce is centralized, so the commit-push step would be probably one, but this is a minor problem here.
All I care is to be able to save my work in version control at any time, even if it's not 100% ready - perhaps to a different branch. I'd also like other users to be able to be able to get my code (from this different branch), but only if they want this - the default branch should stay unafected as long as I don't merge my changes with it.
Is it possible? I am using Server 2012.2
Can you upgrade to Server 2013.1 or later? There's a great feature there, called Task Streams.
Here's some references:
http://www.perforce.com/blog/130627/task-streams-even-if-you-are-classic-perforce-shop
http://www.perforce.com/blog/130206/task-streams
http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4v/streams_task.html
The analogous flow in Perforce would be:
Maintain a main-line "branch" at some path, say //depot/default
To create a feature branch, integrate from //depot/default to //depot/feature-3021
Work under //depot/feature-3021 and submit
When you are ready to merge back, integrate //depot/feature-3021 to //depot/default
Regarding closing the branch after its use, there are a couple of options that I can think of. You could either change permissions or simply delete it. The delete could always be recovered.
Also note the paths don't need to be at the same hierarchy. A more reasonable branch strategy might use paths like this.
Main-line: //depot/default
Developer branches: //depot/dev/${user}/${feature}