I'd like to know how to proceed in GitHub where I could to be able to get the updates from the original repo but prevent opening a PR after each time I push a change made by myself?
The concept I want to apply this is to use a blog template for my GitHub pages. I'd like to get the feature for the future if the contributors would make any but at the same time, I'd like to prevent pushing anything to the original repo as a PR since those commits wouldn't include anything related to making a contribution to the project.
PRs aren't generated automatically, you need to explicitly create them from a branch.
You can fork a repo and work on it, and when needed, fetch and rebase from the original repo you forked from. As long as you don't explicitly use this repo to create PRs on the original repo, you should be fine.
EDIT - Adding some details as per the last comment:
Assume there's a repo called something owned by someone. You can start off by forking it to youruser using the GitHub UI. Then you can clone your fork and work on it:
git clone https://github.com/youruser/something.git
In order to get the recent changes from the original someone/something repo, you need to set it up as a remote. By convention you'd call this remote your "upstream", but you can really give it any name you choose:
git remote add upstream https://github.com/someone/something.git
Once you've added it as a remote, you can fetch from it and rebase on top of it:
git fetch upstream && git rebase upstream/main
(note that using the main branch is just an example. You can of course rebase on top of any branch in the remote repo)
I think it's not possible because when you clone or fork that repo, from that time, you start to add your own content to it since it's your personal blog. So you cannot keep getting the features from main repo. Maybe you can try rebase but I'm not sure if it works for this case. Or you can add those features to your repo by your own whenever you need them.
Related
I'm trying to create a pull request on GitHub for project "original/QWERTY" so I forked the repo to "Mark/QWERTY". In Eclipse, I already have a repository set up for "original/QWERTY" and that project is in my workspace, named QWERTY.
Now if I create a new repository pointing at "Mark/QWERTY", I'll have two projects with the same name and both Eclipse and me won't like it.
I thought that it should be possible to have a branch or another remote under a repository and switch between them instead of having two copies (I mean just store the diffs). The problem is that they are different projects on GitHub so I'm not sure how to do it.
What is the correct way to set up two GitHub projects to create a pull request from my fork to the original one in Eclipse with EGit?
The usual workflow for forked repositories is to have a single local repository with a single work directory that is configured to fetch and push from/to multiple remote repositories.
With this setup, you can switch between branches that originate from different remote repositories.
The Fork a repo documentation of GitHub explains this setup when using CLI Git. Most of it should also apply to repositories hosted elsewhere.
Using the EGit documentation, it should be possible to translate these instructions into the corresponding actions in EGit.
How to manage multiple remotes with EGit is documented here: https://wiki.eclipse.org/EGit/User_Guide#Remote_Repositories
Using the information from Rudiger's comment and answer and my trial and error with branches I made my own steps. This picture also helps with terminology.
First, do these 2 things in any order:
fork the original project in the github website so now you have the original and the fork. They have the same code and branches.
create a local repository pointing to the original repo on github. Let's say you decided to select only the master branch.
Remotes: you get a new remote I'll call origin (default). configure its fetch if it's not done for you, the default specification is +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*. This ref spec maps all the repo branches to Remote Tracking branches with the same name. If you want to only fetch the master branch then use +refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master.
Branches: you get a "Remote Tracking" branch called origin/master and a local branch called master with configuration of "Remote: origin" and "Upstream Branch: refs/heads/master". You will be working under the local master as it's the only branch right now.
Now you want to be able to push to your fork so you can create PR. You can and already did pull from the original to keep getting updates from other people's work.
Right click on "Remotes" and create a new remote, I'll call it fork (call it whatever you need). Configure its push.
the URI points to your fork the same way the origin Remote URI points to the original.
The ref mapping maps the branches. Go to "Advanced" and click "Add All Branch Specs" if it isn't done for you. You should get the spec refs/heads/*:refs/heads/*. It's easy to work with this spec but you can change it to whatever you need.
Create a local branch (right click -> switch to -> new branch) whose source is the local branch named master and the branch name is whatever suits what it does. it can be the master branch or a new branch that let's say fixes a bug, so bug 123. You do not have a Remote Tracking branch because those are used for pulls. If you also pull from fork then you will need to configure that in the Remote fork and get a remote branch.
Now you are working on a local branch bug 123 (you can see a checkmark next to it). Fix the bug in your code and in the Git Staging view you should see the files changed and the title is <Repository name> [bug 123]. Make sure you are going to commit/push to the correct branch! Stage whatever you need and commit (adds the changes to the local branch bug123) and push (creates a branch on the github repo called bug 123 if you stayed with the default spec).
Now go to the GitHub repo page of either the original or the fork and the UI will tell you that you can create a PR. From there GitHub will guide you.
Once the PR is merged into the master branch of the original on GitHubm, you will want to fetch from the master.
Right click on the Remote origin or its fetch "subdir" and choose fetch. The will fetch any changes in all the remote branches because the fetch spec we used maps all the branches (we used the * character).
That's it. Continue to switch to a local branch which maps to your fork based on the updated master, fix bug, commit and push, create PR, wait for merge into the original, fetch and pull from the original.
I have a set of documentation for my company's API, based on the excellent Slate framework from TripIt. Per instructions, I forked their repo and proceeded to customize it. That fork lives here.
The obnoxious thing is that when contributors in my organization do a new pull request, the "base fork" on the Github "Comparing Changes" screen defaults to TripIt's repository, not my fork. They've more than once sent pull requests to the wrong place. Telling people "don't do that" isn't a particularly reliable solution. How can I set the default for where PRs are based to my fork?
GitHub keeps track of forks made through their interface and assumes pull requests will be for that original repository. You need to tell GitHub that your copy is not a fork but rather a regular repository that just happens to have identical history. Sadly, GitHub doesn't offer a good way to just uncheck the fork link. I typically solve it this way:
Clone the repository, git pull, and ensure your local copy is completely up to date.
Delete the repository on GitHub.
Create the repository on GitHub using the exact same name. Ensure it's an empty repository (don't create a README or LICENSE file.)
git push all the content back into the repository. (You may need to switch to each branch and push it, and you also may need to git push --tags.)
FRAGILE: This approach will lose existing GitHub issues and pull request comments. If you're using these heavily, this approach is probably a bad idea, and you should contact GitHub customer support to help you instead.
It is unfortunate that GitHub does not provide a way to configure the default PR target repo.
If you can delete (or get the owner to delete) the original repo A from which B was forked, then that will do the trick.
If it is not possible/agreeable to delete A, but the owner of A is willing to do the following, then the fork link gets broken, on GitHub Enterprise at least:
mark repo A as Private
mark repo A as Public again
After doing this, repo B (which was originally forked from A) will default to opening PRs against itself, rather than A.
Note: if A itself was forked from something further back in the history, then unfortunately it seems that B starts defaulting to opening PRs against that repo once A has gone. The only solution would be to apply the above to all repos upstream in the fork tree :(
Your other developers seem to have forked TripIt's repository, so that is the source/parent of their work.
In fact, if you open your own repository, you will see it hasn't been forked at all (the fork count is 0).
When they issue a merge request, by default github shows that repository as source, and so the pull request isn't sent to you.
The simplest workaround in this case is to ask your dev's to fork your repository, and work on it.
Yes, it's a bad situation...
The only solution I know of (other than deleting the fork and recreating/pushing directly from a local clone as described here ) is to have the upstream owner make the original repo PRIVATE and then return it to PUBLIC. Taking it private breaks the link to forks permanently.
But of course that requires action by the upstream owner. Github should really solve this, but it's been an issue for a very long time.
I have a forked repo. The original repo has been updated and I need to pull in these changes. I would prefere to use github.com for this rather than the command line if possible.
From the github.com page of my fork I have a button called Compare which allows me to compare my branches with the branches in the original repo, and merge if there are changes. This should do what I want except that the changes I need to update are in a new branch that isn't in my repo.
IMHO, the best way to do this is by installing the Pull app in GitHub.
After forking a repository, you can then enable the app for the
repository, and then configure the app for the forked repository. 🙂
I have a git project that I'm about to push to SourceForge. The origin for my local repo is a shared file system repo that gives me a backup facility.
When I eventually add SF as another remote I just want to push the latest (= versioned) commit to it as the starting base of my code on that repo, and not include all the previous commits that contain possibly rubbish/sensitive/embarrassing code.
My question is similar to this one, except that question was about just leaving out some of the history - I want to leave out all of the history and have the latest commit to become the starting point of the project code on SF. Importantly, having done this, I want "push to upstream" to continue to work even though origin and SF will be different.
Is this possible? Incidentally I'm doing this through Eclipse ie. eGit.
Update
My original question should have been clearer, although the answers so far have helped clarify exactly what I'm trying to achieve.
I want just consolidated commits pushed to SF, representing the published versions.
This is what I want to do:
[master] A--B--C--D--E--F--G--H--I... --> push to origin (private)
\ \
[public] V1----------V2... --> push to public remote repo
#michas's answer starts me off with V1 on branch public, but I can't figure out how to continue to extend this branch with subsequent version commits. I've experimented with rebase but can't get the result I want.
It sounds like you want to start with a new repo. Why don't you just delete or rename your old repo and create a brand new one. Then copy all of your files in, commit them, and push.
Well, you cannot push the current commit, as this commit contains the whole "rubbish" history.
However you can create a new commit with the same content but without any history.
git checkout --orphan fresh # create a new branch called `fresh` without any history
git commit # add your work as a new commit
git diff fresh master # the both branches should contain the same content (assuming you original branch was called `master`)
git log # verify the current branch does not contain any history
git push sf fresh # push that branch
git push sf fresh:master # (or you might want to call that branch master on sf)
The answer provided by #michas didn't allow me to subsequently maintain the branch with consolidated history. This required the use of git merge --squash. The scheme I eventually came up with was similar to the one described here.
Just tidying up so the question has an upvoted answer.
There is a branch in github that I can access via Eclipse/eGit. A colleague then created a branch off of that existing branch, but that new branch is not visible to me in Eclipse or from the command line. What do I need to do to make that branch-off-of-a-branch visible to me?
Your colleague needs to push it to Github, then you need to do a fetch to get it from Github. Then, if you want to work on that same branch yourself, you need to create a local branch based on it, which, in recent Git versions, can be done simply via git checkout <simple branch name>.
Update: So when you have trouble fetching remote refs, you should check that your fetch refspec looks something like +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*, or you won't see the whole picture.