In github, is it possible to show the diff of a single file between two commits?
One can readily diff two commits, and it is possible to link to the anchor for a specific file in those two commits, but all files are included in that view. For example, https://github.com/adamginsburg/APEX_CMZ_H2CO/compare/a94a962db51e0f4e73ec3ba4170a0ca8269548da...adamginsburg:master#diff-22
I would like a similar view, but without the other files.
(I know how to do this on the command line with git, but I want to share this link with collaborators, so the command line approach is not relevant for this question)
I think your question can be consider a duplicate of this one :
How can I generate a diff for a single file between two branches in github
Unfortunately, the accepted answer doens't answer your expected behavior.
I really tried to exclude the other files without success, and since there not seems to have other means to filter it out but html anchor pointer, I guess what you already have is what best available with Github to pin point the change you want to talk about with your peers.
I can recommend you to use Vscode with the Git History, I know is not the same as having in Github but it allows you to see the changes of the code according to an specific file or the entire project, comparing with the actual code, see all the changes of specific file through the commits, I work with this tool and this is helpful for me, hopefully it will be helpful for you.
Git History Example Usage
You can use the GitHub File Diff extension available for Chrome and Firefox.
Disclaimer: I made this extension.
Related
A user proposed a localization to an open source project; however, they proposed a localization for an old version. I'd like to point them at the changes that were made between the two.
I know that I can show the difference between branches by providing the following link:
https://github.com/<user or organization>/<project>/master...master:<branch name>
Is there a similar interface for comparing certain commits? (and, ideally, only versions of a certain file) I'd like not to bother the potential contributor with learning git and doing the diff locally in the first place (although that I'll suggest that in the future).
I've tried
https://github.com/<user or organization>/<project>/master...master:<hash>
but that didn't work which is kinda expected; and I haven't found any reference on this matter either.
You can compare the difference between two commits on GitHub by using the below URL
https://github.com/{user}/{repo}/compare/{commit-1-hash}..{commit-2-hash}
For eg, to compare the diff between commits c3a414e and faf7c6f for the linguist repo of github, use the below
https://github.com/github/linguist/compare/c3a414e..faf7c6f
The above will show the diff like this:
You can go through the GitHub reference for more information.
When creating a GitHub Pull Request, it is often that a file (script, lib, etc.) may be completely replaced (or introduced) with one from another repo. Sometimes, the file requires small changes. I'm trying to establish a standard for my team for how to communicate where the file came from and what changed. In the same way that you can craft a URL to highlight a specific change in a single repo, I'd like to be able to highlight a change across repos.
The reality may very well be that GitHub does not offer this. (I do a lot of research before asking questions. Consequently, the answer is often, "you couldn't find an answer because it is impossible.") In which case an alternative will be needed. One possibility might be to generate a diff in markdown and add it as a comment. (Notice I improved that answer back in 2016.)
One possibility might be to generate a diff in markdown and add it as a comment.
Good idea.
One alternative which would not depend on a PR comment would be to use git notes. They are not supported/displayed by GitHub since 2014 and they are criticised, but they would remain in your case possible way to leave... well a note describing where some of the PR files are coming from.
I have a dev folder with all my projects. Some of these are on github and some are not. I also use Dropbox (with symlinks) to keep my data synchronised across several computers.
For example if I add something to my Documents folder on one PC I can then see it in the corresponding folder on another PC.
My question is: If I do the same with my dev folder (so the dev folder is synced by Dropbox on both PCs) will it cause problems with my pushing to github?
You don't ever want to mix code versioning strategies. Either all of your code lives in git (which is a good idea), or it all lives in Dropbox (which doesn't give you any history, hence a very bad idea).
When you add a source file to git, you should be forced to push it to Github so it can be pulled at a later date.
I get the feeling that you will run into issues when pushing the code - you'll be adding new files in through one source, but pulling through another - it'd turn into a headache more than a benefit.
I'm not sure exactly how you could "prove" that is ok. But, I have used exactly this development model with no issues. I personally, don't use symlinks in my dropbox but that shouldn't affect anything. All of my git repos are on my Dropbox. I've been working this way for over a year across OXS, Windows, and Ubuntu. All of my commits and pushes have worked just fine.
Also, this may be a repeat of this question: Using Git and Dropbox together effectively?
[edit:]
Actually one thing was recently brought to my attention is that you might run into an issue with line endings across systems. This post from GitHub (with a link back to an SO question) explains how to deal with line endings.
I had the same question and now my answer is "simply move your repository out of Dropbox".
As you can see, Using Git and Dropbox together effectively? is not the same question, but if you just search the key word "GitHub", you will see the debate about your confusing. And maybe you will make your own desition.
Does the wiki that installs with a GitHub repo support directories? Our wiki is cluttered with pages, and we are looking for a way to organize them better.
We tried pulling the repo, creating local directories, and moving things around, but when committed back, the wiki didn't pick up the changes.
I was having the exact same issue and tried variants of what you tried. Nothing stuck. Asked GitHub support about it and received a reply that essentially said "No, but we'll let the developers know that people are interested in this feature."
So the short answer is "No", and the long answer is "No, but maybe in the future."
Actually, it looks like github added support for directories recently.
I was able to do the following:
Move an existing markdown file to a new directory.
Create a new markdown file in an existing directory (created in the former step).
Create a new markdown file in a new directory.
In all cases, the existing pages were still there and new pages were added.
The one constraint that remains is that your file names must be unique. If you have more than one file with the same name, only one of them will show up in the wiki (I'm not sure which.. ).
The GitHub wiki (aka Gollum) does use directories but not in the way you may expect.
The documentation on the Gollum wiki could use some work but this is what I have figured out mostly via testing.
All files appear in the root of the wiki no matter where they are placed in the repo.
_Header, _Footer and _Sidebar files are per-directory, but inherited if there is
none present in a child folder.
File links can be relative to the source file (keep your files with your content).
So, if you want directories for namespacing you are out of luck. Consider using the {namespace}-{page} scheme for namespacing.
It's not the an ideal solution but the workaround would be to create a custom sidebar where you create a table of contents with links to your pages. I find this to be better than folders anyway because it allows you to have a link to a single page under multiple hierarchies.
Actually, there is still a limitation. Yes, you can add 1 level (so, 1 subfolder). But that's it! I refactored my whole documentation layout, creating multiple levels of subfolders for organisation, but that was a no-go.
sigh
I must say: I'm appalled by this Gollum thing. I'm surprised Github even picked it up.
Well, that's a disappointing missing feature!
What I try to do is to actually have directories under a docs directory and in each one, a README.md file.
Not great...but works for documentation and organizes stuff.
If you want to go further, you can have a different branch only with these files.
Still no intention of adding this 9/2022.
https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/23914
I'm learning mercurial as my solo scm software. With other management software, you can put change comments into the file header through tags. With hg you comment the change set, and that doesn't get into the source. I'm more used to central control like VSS.
Why should I put the file history into the header of the source file? Should I let mercurial manage the history with my changeset comments?
Let the source control system handle it.
If you put change details in the header it will soon become unwieldy and overwhelm the actual code.
Additionally if the scm has the concept of changelists (where many files are grouped into a single change) then you'll be able to write the comment so that it applies to the whole change and not just the edits in the one file (if that makes sense), giving you a clearer picture of why the edit was required.
Yes; let the source control system handle your changeset comments. The rationale for this is that it makes considerably more sense when you're viewing the change log later, trying to work out what's going on between two versions of a file - the source control system can present the change comment to try and enlighten the situation.
There's no reason to manually maintain a file history when SCM software is much better suited to solve this problem. All too often I see partially-completed file histories in the source, which actually hurts, because people incorrectly assume it is accurate.
The difference is not whether it's a centralized or distributed VCS, it's more about what's being changed.
When I moved to .Net, the number of files updated for any individual change seemed to skyrocket. If I had to log the change in each file, I'd never get any real work done. By commenting on the set of changes, it doesn't matter how many files I had to update.
If I ever needed to identify all of the changes for a particular change, I can diff between the two versions of the project.
The biggest difference (and advantage) I saw when switching away from SourceSafe was the switch from file based to project based commits. As soon as I got used to that, I stopped adding change-log type comments to all of my files.
(As a side effect, I've found that my process description comments have gotten better)
I'm not a big proponent of littering the code with change comments. In the event they are needed they can be looked up in the SCM (at least for the SCM variants I have used). If you do want them in the file, consider putting them at the end instead of the beginning. That way you won't have to scroll down past the (uninteresting, to me at least) comments before you get to the actual code.
Another vote for letting the SCM system handle the checkin comments, but I do have one thing to add.
Some systems allow you to use RCS tags in your source code where the SCM can insert the change history directly into the source file being committed automatically. Sounds like a nice balance because the history is then in the SCM system and then automatically put into the source code itself.
The problem is that this process changes the source file. I think that's a bad idea because the file cannot be changed on disk until after you comment is inserted. If you were a good engineer, you should have built and tested changes before the commit. If your source changes after the commit, then you've essentially got a build that could be broken - but most engineers won't build after a commit - why should they?
But it's just a comment you say! True, but I did have a case where there was code in my source file that strangely enough had reason to look like an RCS header tag and that section of the code got replaced on checkin, thereby munging my code. Easy enough to fix, but bad that a build got broken for 20+ users
Much easier to forget to maintain history in the source, as one always (imo) should comment commits to source control system that problem dissappers. Also if changing lots of files before commit, changing history in every file will be annoying work. This is really one of the points with having scm.
I have experience with this. I've had the file history in the comments, it was awful. Nothing but garbage, sometimes you would have to scroll down almost 1k lines of code changes before you finally got to what you wanted. Not to mention, you're slowing down other aspects of your build process by adding more kb to your source code tree.