Recently, we have started a group project and decided to use GitHub to share the code among ourselves.
For example, if I created a login page and my friend created a home page, how can I get it on my local machine.
I mean, whenever a change is made to the repo, do we need to download it all again?
The beauty of GitHub is that you can always go back whenever you feel like.
Whenever a changed is made by any of the teammate, it's a really good practice that you push that change. Even when it's a small one. After you've pushed your changes, your teammates would need to pull that change.
The best sequence for this is;
- git commit
- git pull
- git push
You'll have to pull the changes first as it would help you avoid getting merge conflicts. If you get any merge conflicts on any line, or any function, you'll resolve that conflict and follow the same sequence once again.
So, to conclude, GitHub is so easy to use and you won't have to necessary 'Download' all the changes once again. I would recommend you to setup via Visual Studio 2019 so that it becomes easier for you to just "pull" the changes whenever a new change has been made.
Related
I see this message below my repo name. Is there any way to remove it? I used template for my app for a quick start, but in current form my app doesn't look like this template, because everything changed so much. I don't see any reason why it's still there.
I had the same problem and at the time for writing this answer, there is no option of removing this from Github. So removed this tag by deleting the repository from Github and recreating a new one with the same name.
⚠️ This operation will preserve only the information stored in git, not all other Github features, i.e. issues, PRs, ... If your repository has been used for a while, this might not be the right time to do this anymore.
Specific instructions:
Make sure you have cloned your repository and all your non-stale branches are saved locally.
git fetch
Delete the original repository in the Github web UI.
Create a new repository with the same name.
Push the branches you want back to the remote.
git push
Is there a way to either scroll faster through the commit history OR go to the very beginning?
I don’t see an option, not even on desktop site.
I’m trying to figure out why a certain branch was made but that info is not in the README section because the README is not customized per branch.
I don't think github has this built in but there are a couple of ways using URLs.
With some trial and error using page? gets you to the beginning of the history fast: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/commits/master?page=242
This is less trial and error because you can enter nearly exact values: you know the current latest commit's hash and github says there's about 8450 commits so this one gets you to the first page: https://github.com/micropython/micropython/commits/master?after=cada971113e6db0cf9e0751e95dbe9217dd707b5+8420
There used to be a tool for it but the site is dead now so only the code is left.
But anyway, I'm fairly sure you'd achieve your actual goal way (examining log searching for something) faster without github, by using git itself. Github is fine for hosting but it's not exactly a complete git user interface. On th other hand git log/blame/rev-list commands are built for that. E.g. first commit hash: git rev-list --max-parents=0 HEAD
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 started using SourceTree few days ago and after I committed and pushed my changes to the remote GitHub repository, the numbers on the buttons remain the same, for example if the number on the push button becomes 3 when I committed a change, after I pushed it; it needs to be 0 or empty. But that's not the case here, it remains the same even though it has successfully been pushed. I also checked that my changes had been pushed using a web browser by going to the GitHub site. Is it because of the branch that I have pulled from and am pushing to are different or something else? Can any one please help cause I don't understand it... Thanks!
The numbers shown on the right hand side of the Branches panel reflect how many commits ahead or behind the Tracking Branch you currently are. If the numbers aren't what you expect, you should verify that the branch is tracking what you actually want.
You can verify the tracking branch by right clicking your local branch (as depicted below) and expanding the Track remote branch menu item. Finally, if you want to change the tracking branch simply click the new target from the list and Sourcetree will update accordingly. Hopefully that helps make sense of the disconnect that can happen when you rename branches and provides some details around why it happens and a simple way to resolve.
The same thing also happened to me too, I was working on branch I had push everting but was keeping appearing one unsend Push and miraculously also appear unsend Push on Master.
So what did was the same as Hristo Staykov and Sammie remove the Master branch from my local computer, since I had one miraculously unsend Push on Master did need to run this line terminal to remove the branch:
git branch -D master
And then Repository > Refresh Remote Status
I simply use the keyboard shortcut from the Repository menu:
CTRL+ALT+R (or control+option+R if you prefer)
My guess is that the shortcut would be the same or at least similar on Windows. Just look for the option called Refresh Remote Status under the Repository menu.
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}