We have a GitHub project (master), every member of the team have a Fork of the project into their own repository.
Once a developer fixed something he create a new branch inside his local forked repo and commit that into remote repository and after that they request a Pull Request so that change go into the master reposiroty.
We publish to production "manually" once a week but we have had issues in production because accidentaly developer had committed to their forked repository and other developer with higher privilegies accept the changes and merge that into master repo, then someone else publish to production and he didnt knew that those new changes didn't passed to QA process.
So, what I want is to create like a Production Repository, so when we have the code in master repo that we know is stable and working then create like a Production branch so if by mistake something is commited and merge into master repo then the code for production publish is not affected.
Any clue or best practice to do this?
Not sure I'm understanding the question correctly, but you can add as many remote repositories as you like. There is a section in the Pro Git book called Working with Remotes that discusses this thoroughly.
In my experience, separating development and production code is typically done with a branching model such as git-flow. You can create separate repositories to solve this problem if you like, but doing so is unnecessary. This is because if developer A submits a PR that's merged by developer B, then developer C will get a non-fast-forward error when they try to commit upstream. This is called a subversion-style workflow. Per the docs:
Git will not allow you to push if someone has pushed since the last time you fetched, so a centralized model where all developers push to the same server works just fine.
If commits to the upstream branch are not being fetched and merged appropriately before pushing, then someone has likely taken it upon themselves to rewrite history.
Your git workflow is good enough to take care of this issue.
First, to fix the issue:
Treat unintended code push as bug and fix it as you would fix any other bug. Best person to perform this activity would be the developer who pushed that code. Developer can just fix it in their fork and submit a pull request. Try not to add any other unrelated code with this pull request.
About Production Branch or Repo:
I don't think you need another Production Branch/Repo (you already have one). As it happened with your current PROD repo, accidental code push can make it to new Branch/Repo too.
Instead use tags/releases feature in GitHub. Whenever state of code in master repo is prod ready, tag it and use the tag for production publish.
Related
For a project with multiple developers where one developer controls what goes to production: This developer pushes from his own branch <his_branch>, and everyone has to incorporate their changes into his branch. His branch contains his changes and the changes other developers' changes. How do I make sure I pull down his most recent branch and work from it on my local. I have tried so many different commands and approaches, with the most recent being:
Git clone the repository (done when I started the project)
Fetch his branch
Create a working branch <my_branch> from <his_branch>
git checkout -b my_branch origin/his_branch
(I get errors)
Create my branch on remote
Fetch all including my new branch (but my new branch contains code from Master)
Access my branch locally, work on it, commit changes, create a pull request for him to review
(I don't have his latest code) and there are many conflicts to resolve
I am new to GitHub and can't find a fairly straightforward answer to this question. Typically people who answer this question, make sure they provide the most complicated solution to follow to try to impress with their GitHub acumen.
Can someone provide a straightforward answer without snark, condescension, or derision?
To be clear: I am NOT asking how to keep my fork up-to-date. I am asking a very different question, and the answer seems to be independent of GitLab or Github.
I'm curious as to why my fork doesn't need to be kept up-to-date? I have forked a project, and I have a local clone of the project with two remotes ("thetango", my fork, and "upstream", the main project). I have noticed that I don't ever really need to update my fork on either GitLab or GitHub.
I would have thought that when I pushed to create a PR (GitHub) or an MR (GitLab) the first error I would have received is that my fork is out-of-date and needs to be fast-forwarded. That never happens, which confuses me.
What git magic does GitLab and Github implement so that my fork doesn't need to be updated? Am I misunderstanding what a fork is?
When you create a pull request between your fork of a repository and a branch in the main repository, you're essentially proposing a merge between a given branch in your repository and a given branch in the main repository. The only branches which matter in that case are those two.
You may have other branches in your fork, such as the default branch and branches that include other work you're doing, but unless you're doing a pull request with one of them, how far ahead or behind they are from their corresponding branches in the main repository is irrelevant.
Now, if the branch you're creating a pull request from is far behind the one you want to merge into in the main repository, then the chance of merge conflicts increases. Therefore, it's prudent to keep your local repository up to date with the main repository if you're going to be creating pull requests, so that when you push that branch to make a PR, the branch you push is not substantially out of date.
One reason you may choose to keep your fork's main branch up to date is if you're doing independent development. For example, Git for Windows contains many Windows-specific patches which have not made it into mainline Git, so their repository is kept up to date because it's essentially an entire separate line of development.
Caveat: I am fairly new to both git and GitHub.
So, in my current setup, my team uses git flow Hotfixes (usually started and finished by a graphical tool such as GitKraken or IntelliJ) to make changes that have to be merged into two branches and pushed upstream in both. So for example the flow would be:
Pull latest from master
Start hotfix
Commit changes
Merge hotfix branch into both master and develop and push both upstream
We're now looking at moving our code into GitHub and would like to start using Pull Requests, for a couple of reasons:
CI hooks to run tests and stuff
a place to put code-specific comments not directly related to the underlying "issue"
avoiding the need for everyone to constantly be pulling the latest master/develop to their local machine so that they can merge changes
But in the case of Hotfixes, I'm not sure what to do because I'm merging into two branches but it really is one "action" so manually creating two pull requests seems weird, particularly since step 4) in our current flow is a single click.
Is there a smart way of handling this? My ideal case would be that pushing the Merge button on the Pull Request would just merge into both, but that doesn't seem to be an available option.
As you mentioned, a Pull Request has only one target branch, so you won't be able to push the hotfix to both master and develop by merging one Pull Request.
I'm also surprised you mention your step #4 - merging the hotfix branch to both master and develop and push upstream - is one action. While there's a high chance the merge from hotfix to master won't run into merge conflicts, I can't say the same for the merge from hotfix to develop since it could have been worked on since the last deployment to production.
My recommendation would then be the following:
Create one PR from hotfix to master and have someone review it to validate the fix
Once it's merged into master, create another PR from hotfix to develop and see if you run into merge conflicts
If that's the case, resolve the merge conflicts so the PR ends up in a state to be merged, and have someone review the PR
If there's no merge conflicts, then have someone review the PR
An alternative solution, if you really want to go down the automated path, would be to leverage both GitHub webhooks and API.
The webhook would allow you to be notified when a PR is merged. You could inspect the payload to make sure that the base branch starts with hotfix/ and the target branch is master. You could then react to that event by using the API to create a new PR from the same hotfix branch to develop.
It will involve some development, and the effort might not be worth since creating a PR via the UI is still quite easy and quick.
Me and my friend are two days into using Git now but we still lack the know-how to use it properly and utilize its full power though it is a tremendous step in the right direction, compared to using Facebook messages to sending and syncing files. We have searched over the net and most of the guides for Egit either assume you work alone or that someone else clones and branches off to their own repo. However we are collaborating on the same project (a 2D RPG) and don't know how to properly use Egit to work together. Some of the problems we face:
1. We had the exact same copy of the project, he changed some of the methods we used, I changed some of the classes and resources we use. He committed and pushed to repo first. Now I cannot push or commit or even pull because of conflicts in the files (repo vs local) which Egit complains must be resolved.
2. How do you properly synchronize code that you are collaborating on? Lets say either one of us is first out to push to repo, what must the other (the puller) do to make sure his own code is not completely overwritten, only accept parts that have changed, parts that we think should be changed.
3. Do we always have to make a (new) local branch, pull to this, see changes, and merge the changes we want with the master/main? How do you properly do this.
Any input is most welcome, we are already much more efficient with our broken knowledge, more will only do good :)
Ok here are my answers:
We had the exact same copy ... because of conflicts in the files (repo vs local) which Egit complains must be resolved.
First you should make sure you use separate branches so that you can always commit.
Then you have to resolve any conflicts when you merge.
How do you properly synchronize code ...
Use separate branches to make sure code is ok before you pull it into master branch.
Do we always have to make a (new) local branch ...
Yes, git is built on the assumption that this is the best way to work. "Everything is local"
This is the way I or we usually use branches:
Main dev branch (Master)
Project branch, used to merge in features added by this project. When all features have been added and seems to work this is pushed/merged into the master branch.
Developer branches, every developer has his/her own branch to develop a specific feature before pushing/merging that into the project branch.
What could sometimes be good to have is also specific release branches. I.e. when a project has merged all added features into the master branch and everything seems ok, a release branch is created for regression testing. This branch will eventually contain the released software when all testing has been done.
The benefit of doing a separate release branch is that the main branch can continue to be developed, but if a fast bugfix has to be done on an earlier release it can be done on that release branch and then later merged into the master branch.
//jk
If I fork a project that's hosted on github. Do I fork all the branches? How do I know which branch my fork is based on? In other words which branch will be downloaded to my PC?
Think of it this way:
The repo[sitory] corresponds to the collaborated work of the team across one or many branches. All contributors have their own copy of it.
Each fork of the main repo corresponds to a contributor's work. A fork is really a Github (not Git) construct to store a clone of the repo in your user account. As a clone, it will contain all the branches in the main repo at the time you made the fork.
Each branch within the fork and/or in the main repo can correspond to several kinds of things, depending on how you want to work. Each branch could refer to a version of the project but can also correspond to different channels of development, like hotfixes or experimental work.
The pull request (in the GitHub ecosystem) corresponds to the task. Every time I want to contribute an isolated finished task to the main repo, I create a pull request corresponding to the commits made in that task. These commits are pulled from either my fork or my branch to the main repo.
A commit is a set of changes to the code. This is one of the most interesting things about Git. You don't transfer files, you transfer logs of changes.
All branches on GitHub will be copied in a fork. (Obviously, this doesn’t include branches that were never pushed to GitHub in the first place.)
But a fork is a GitHub-to-GitHub operation; nothing is copied to your PC. It’s not quite the same as a Git clone. If you mean to ask “what’s copied when I clone a project?”, see the manual for git-clone(1).
Fork is a clone on the GitHub side (it clones everything).
When you are cloning a repo, you are getting the all history of said repo, with all its branches.
Even though you can in theory change the default branch of a remote repo, a clone from a GitHub repo mainly look for the master branch. Meaning to change the "default" branch a GitHub clone will get, you need to rename the master branch.
If you fork a project, you are making a copy of the whole project to your git hub account. you are not coping anything to your PC
To make a copy in your PC you have to clone it and pull all the stuff and you will got all branches & code of that project
This can be explained very well. You have a central repository at GitHub. Whenever you take a clone of it on your personal computer to do some changes, this local clone of the main repository is called a fork.
The branch is something different and is included in the fork/repo. Actually the branch is your work at different stage of development. They are created as and when required to save a set of functionalities, to give access to different users, to demonstrate the site to client, etc.
If you create a fork of a project from the Github website, you get all the branches from the upstream project.
If you clone from your newly minted fork to your local PC, you will have the origin remote on your PC pointing to the master branch of your fork on Github.
I would like to share a real life example of when we use Branches and when we use Forks
We have GitLab at our shop and sometimes we have to work on packages from a Laravel project. We normally create a branch and push changes to the branch that we have been testing in our local VM dev environment when working with the actual Laravel project.
Let's say our project is located at
https://github.com/yardpenalty/mainproject.git
Branch usage:
Lets say the branch is called It_doesnt_matter
Once we have our branch the way we want for production we then make our final push to this branch and create a merge request which then goes into UAT for testing.Once the test has went through QC the changes are merged into production.
The merge from the It_doesnt_matter branch is now pushed to the master project
at https://github.com/yardpenalty/mainproject.git
Let's say the package project is located at
https://github.com/yardpenalty/mypackage.git
Keep in mind the mainproject uses this package in production so we can't make changes by simply pushing them to this package (among other reasons). Let's say a web dev has to edit this package to make changes on production.
A simple branch wont work either because we can't see our changes without publishing the package etc.
Fork Usage:
Now is when we have to do a little bit of trickery with our package so we create a clone of the production package via a fork. The composer.json files can be updated to point to the fork which is now located at a User or Group path
So we will create a fork in https://github.com/yardpenalty/mypackage.git
and call it https://github.com/yardpenalty/yards/mypackage.git
Now we can update our composer.json file to point to this package in our "repositories":[ array like such such and away we go!
{
"type": "github",
"url": "https://github.com/yardpenalty/yard/mypackage.git"
}
]