I have branch protection rule in place in Github which matches all branches so none can be deleted. I want to change that to a case where the person who created the branch should be able to delete it. So, I can delete my branch but not of someone else's and vice versa
Is there a way to do that?
No, there is no way to add security on individual things in most things GitHub. In general, there is a revert option for these actions, since the commits these branches pointed to will never really go away anyway.
You can add a Branch Protection to a branch to prevent accidental deletions, but you can't auto-restrict the allow deletions of those branches to the person who originally pushed that branch:
Related
Here is my project https://github.com/dat-nguyen-2001/Muji
and I did commit to it regularly
but it turned out that there was no contribution counted
https://github.com/dat-nguyen-2001
please help me
Ideally you should create a new branch for features you want to implement. Committing to the default/master/main branch is not recommended.
Think of what you want to develop/fix/change.
Create a new branch for it.
Switch to new branch, make changes and commit.
Raise a Pull Request to merge feature branch to default branch.
Read this to know which actions are counted as contributions: https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/setting-up-and-managing-your-github-profile/managing-contribution-settings-on-your-profile/why-are-my-contributions-not-showing-up-on-my-profile#contributions-that-are-counted
New to GitHub, I have created a remote PRIVATE repository called X, and have a collaborator -person Y. Currently, person Y can simply accept the invitation to be a collaborator, and without forking the repo, simply make an edit, commit changes, and it appears on the master branch. This is obviously undesirable and it seems nonsensical that this is even allowed by default.
I would like person Y (collaborator) to:
-have to fork the repository and work only on the forked repo
-have to make changes ONLY via a pull request
-have to have a pull request, accepted/approved by me, before it is committed to master.
I looked through some answers, and tried:
-going to settings
-going to branches (on the left)
-changing access rights
I noticed however, that it required an upgrade.
I am certain I have heard/read that GitHub allowed full features for up to three collaborators.
Other similar questions on SO, have 0 answers.
I have also seen this option in settings:
"When merging pull requests, you can allow any combination of merge commits, squashing, or rebasing. At least one option must be enabled. If you have linear history requirement enabled on any protected branch, you must enable squashing or rebasing."
Allow merge commits
Add all commits from the head branch to the base branch with a merge commit.
It isn't clear to me what the above is referring to. If I checked that, would it stop all commits from collaborator's from being directly pushed to the master branch without authorisation?
Update:
I noticed some answers that suggested this (protecting a branch) cannot be done, but it is good practice to simply AGREE to always create a pull request. I require a pull request to be mandatory - if it is not enforced, an accidental push to master could obviously occur.
The question then is, what are workarounds for this (without having to pay).
Forking? How do you 'grant' access to another user to a PRIVATE repository. I could only see the option to share access by inviting as a collaborator.
There is this option which says: Default branch
The default branch is considered the “base” branch in your repository, against which all pull requests and code commits are automatically made, unless you specify a different branch.
In the above case, how would I go about creating a copy of the master branch, as it were, for collaborator's to work off of, so that the actual master branch is 'protected'?
The only other option I can think of is to create three levels.
One: Me: Project (with Master branch protected because I only grant access to -me 2)
Two. Me 2: I am granted collaborator access and I fork the project. (call it something else)
Three. I then grant collaborator access (if this is allowed) to the forked project, to someone else. This way, the collaborator can make changes to the forked project in Part 2, but not the original master project in Part 1.
Again, this all seems terribly long winded and unnecessary when all that is needed is for the master branch to be protected, only allowing pushes to master via pull requests which need to be authorised.
Any other options? Any advice or suggestions would be appreciated.
See title. Worst case, is there a way I can track the history of commit removals?
Like Tim Biegeleisen said, the best way to do this is to restrict push access to your repository, and only let people contribute to your repository through pull requests (which you can then monitor).
Add to Branch protection rules
Define branch protection rules to disable force pushing, prevent branches from being deleted, and optionally require status checks before merging. New to branch protection rules?
Going to your repo settings -> branches -> add rule
Configuring protected branches
Defining the mergeability of pull requests
How do I go about making my pull requests have only the changes made on the new branch? Every time I push a branch it has all the changes from the previous branches included in the pull request also.
My manager is really big on making sure we do small PRs and have only the new changes on each one for easy review, but I'm at a complete loss as to how to do this. This is my first dev job and up until now I unfortunately haven't been able to do group work so managing PRs that might be a while before they are merged in is totally new to me.
So far I've only found how to cherry pick commits, is this the only way?
If I understand you right, you have a main branch (master?) that contains the latest version of your software and you have one or more other branches that contain modifications. You do some more modifications in that other branch and if you create a pull request it will contain all other changes.
The most simple solution I can think of is to use dedicated branches for all changes. Before starting to work, create a new branch from the main branch with the ticket ID, work description or whatever you use to describe your work: git branch -b feature-123.
Commit to this branch only and push it to the repo. If you now create a pull request from this feature branch to the main branch, it will only contain the changes you did and nothing else.
The further pull requests highly depend on your internal workflow and branch structure. But basically this workflow applies to all new changes.
I made a pull request which was merged to a project. It so happens that the code needs a minor modification. How can I possibly change this with no access to the master project whatsoever? Am I out of luck and I have to do a new PR?
Thanks.
Yes, you should submit another pull request.
When using any of Git's "rewriting" commands like commit --amend or rebase it is important that you avoid changing shared commits.
In its Rebasing chapter, the Git Book says:
The Perils of Rebasing
Ahh, but the bliss of rebasing isn’t without its drawbacks, which can be summed up in a single line:
Do not rebase commits that exist outside your repository.
If you follow that guideline, you’ll be fine. If you don’t, people will hate you, and you’ll be scorned by friends and family.
When you rebase stuff, you’re abandoning existing commits and creating new ones that are similar but different. If you push commits somewhere and others pull them down and base work on them, and then you rewrite those commits with git rebase and push them up again, your collaborators will have to re-merge their work and things will get messy when you try to pull their work back into yours.