I love GitHub's "Network Graph" view. I like how it can give me an overview of the progression of a repository over time:
Unfortunately, I've noticed one problem. When I'm done merging branches into master, if I delete the original feature branch from remote (GitHub), the little branch name labels disappear. This results in a graph that looks like this:
I know I can hover over the commits to see the commit message, but it's so much more helpful (to me, at least) to have the branch name labels to provide a general indication of what I'm looking at.
Is there a way to delete these branches from remote and have this graph retain its labels? Or, is there a better approach that I'm overlooking?
There is no way to keep the name of a deleted branch and remember it's last pointed commit in Git.
In some Git GUIs, they show tag names like this, so you could add a tag to the last commit of a given branch. But GitHub doesn't show tags like that.
So, in GitHub the only way to achieve what you seek is not deleting branches.
I rename my merged branches "zCLOSED-oldname" so that they still have references, but sort to the bottom of the Branch pulldown list.
Unfortunately, you can't rename directly in GitHub, so you have to rename locally, push the "new" branch, and then delete the original Branch name from GitHub.
Related
in a "mirror"ed clone of a repo from Github, I find a lot of commits marked with light purple labels. The labels are named "pull/91/merge", "pull/92/head", "pull/89/head", etc. Here is a image.
They are not branch or tag labels. "git branch --list" only returns "master". And "git tag --list" returns nothing. If I right click on one in gitk, no menu pops up. If it was a tag or branch label, a right menu would pop up allowing me to delete, move, copy, etc.
What are they and how would I work with them? -- delete, rename, convert to branch, etc.
EDIT: I think they're related to pull requests done on Github. This is a "mirror"ed repo from Github after doing "git clone --mirror". Github likely put them there and they shouldn't be touched. But still, what are they and how do you manipulate them with git?
In git, there are various kinds of references. Branches and tags are specific kinds of references with functionality attached to them.
The pull requests in your case are references as well, but of no specific kind. They are pointers to commits. You can use them in various commands, otherwise they won't do anything. Deleting them in your local repository will not affect a remote repository.
To list references:
git show-ref
To change or delete references:
git update-ref
As to where they come from, I can only guess that Github creates them for their server-side handling of pull requests.
In GitHub, is there a way to see all recent commits on all branches. It would be best in reverse chronological order.
Maybe I'm snoopy, but I'd like to be able to see what my developers have been up to recently, at least in terms of commits to the repository on github. So far the closest I've seen is the network graph, which is certainly very useful.
Please note: this is not the right answer, although I hope it continues to be useful. NB it has been made a "Community" answer so I don't receive any points from upvotes
To see all commits for a specific branch (so this does NOT actually answer the original question, which is to see commits across all branches):
Click "Code" (left-most tab) on the main page for the repository. Under those 4 buttons ("master", "Go to file", "Add file", "Code") there is a blue rectangle. At the right end of that is a clock icon and a number. If the viewport of your browser is wide enough it even includes (hurrah) the word "commits". This is a link. Click and ENJOY!!!
NB the URL for this page is like this: https://github.com/myProfile/myRepo/commits/master
This is an old feature of GitHub but not really that intuitive.
Using the GitHub website:
Click a project
Click the 'Insights' tab (moved inside the Meatballs menu)
Click 'Network'
Click on the 'node/circle' for each commit to go to that commit.
Diagram below.
Additionally, you can drag to the left to see all commits throughout time for all forks and branches.
I guess there is no any button which shows you a complete list of commits. If you want to list all commits in a repo, you could browse the following URL:
https://github.com/username/repository/commits
You can view the list of commits by adding the word commits (in plural) at the end of repo URL .
Optionally, you could add some query string to narrow the results in the list. For example:
https://github.com/username/repository/commits?author=johndoe
Update
Thanks to #lii I update this post:
If you want to view all commits in a branch, browse the following URL:
https://github.com/username/repository/commits/branch-name
And you could narrow the list of commits by browsing the following URL:
https://github.com/username/repository/commits/branch-name?author=johndoe
The user interface in GitHub does not currently support a way to see your commits in a branch from the code tab. However, I observed that when I select a branch from the branch selector dropdown, I see the following URL:
// This shows me all commits from all users in the branch called "2.2-stable"
https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commits/2.2-stable
If I click on a username in the list of commits, I observe the following URL:
//This shows me the list of commits from the user "mgol" in the master branch (default branch)
https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commits?author=mgol
So, I thought to myself, why not try to add the query string ?author=mgol to the URL that showed commits on a specific branch:
Solution:
// Show me the list of commits from the user "mgol" on the branch called "2.2-stable"
https://github.com/jquery/jquery/commits/2.2-stable?author=mgol
Again, the user interface has no button that lets you see this view (to the best of my knowledge) but you can manipulate the query string to filter only what you want to see.
Since the 'Insights'/'Network' solution is only available for public/GitHub Team repositories, I found a method that works for both private and public repositories.
github.com/username/reponame/branches
Next to the currently selected branch dropdown, there is a link to github.com/username/reponame/branches
This gives you a (clickable) list of all branches with their most recent commits, in chronological order, as asked in the question:
Although this method does not show all commits (only the most recent one) across all branches, this does allow you to check which of the (new) branches has been updated most recently, and further your investigation. I use this all the time.
Look here: Github API: Retrieve all commits for all branches for a repo this is the only options.
On website you can see only branch specific commits - you need to manually switch between them.
Bitbucket allows to see all commits on all branches.
If viewing this from github.com is not a hard requirement, you can use git:
Clone the project locally, then run the following to show the list of all commits from all branches, sorted by date in descending order:
git log --oneline --all --since="Jan 20 2022"
where --since (and --until) allows you to specify a time range and --all displays commits from every branch including remotes. Alternatively you can replace --all with --branches=*.
You can also display the date and authors with something like this:
git log --oneline --pretty="%C(yellow)%h %C(cyan)%cd %C(magenta)%aN%C(auto)%d %Creset%s" --date-order --date=format:"%y%m%d-%H%M" --all --since="Jan 20 2022"
You can also add --graph switch to get a more structured view instead of a plain list.
Please note: dates may not be reliable to track work: some operations will modify history, e.g. a rebase may update the date of old commits to the date of the rebase, squash may keep the oldest date only, a commit date may be modified arbitrarily, etc.
There is no way to attain that within the original GitHub. But there is a work around.
You could use Le Git Graph (read as legit graph), a browser extension that does exactly this.
Install the extension from here : https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/le-git-graph-commits-grap/joggkdfebigddmaagckekihhfncdobff
It will add a new "commits" section to every GitHub repo you open. Open the commits graph and there, all commits across branches will be listed along with the git graph.
Hope it helps!
An upvote would be highly appreciated!
The actions tab has all recent activities done on a repo for all branches.
The way I have my repos setup, each developer has a user.git account. I recommend doing the following:
git fetch --all
This fetch updates all the local copies of remote branches but doesn't create new local branches of these tracking remote branches. If you have local branches of all your developer's branches, you will want to run:
git pull --all
So what you need to do is git fetch --all and then git pull --all. I hope this helps.
Lastly, you can also do git remote update which is the same as git fetch --all
best way to access all commit of a repository is
install app of the GitHub on your PCs
clone repo with that
on the history tab you can find all commit
but you need patient and scroll down on this tab ;)
have a good time
Simply run the following command and keep on pressing enter as you see the details of each commit step by step
git log
We're using Mercurial to manage a project that has two teams working on it. Our team manages the repo, and we're using hg flow on it, with default, develop and feature branches. The other team does their work in a separate repo, with us pulling in their changes every now and then.
The other team isn't particularly up to speed on Mercurial, and they've wanted to do their work on the default branch. This makes pulling in their changes annoying, because we'd like to keep our default branch clean.
We've done what Ned Batchelder suggested in http://nedbatchelder.com/blog/201111/advanced_mercurial_branches.html, but that still leaves commits in our repo with their branch marked as default. So does using Bitbucket's pull requests.
Other options that spring to mind are using patches or using graft and strip. I'd love to hear suggestions that would be less hassle.
If you want "Hard way, but nice results" you have to forget about easy pure-Bitbucket interface of syncing repositories
With Convert Extension --branchmap option you can rename any branch in source repository into any name. Thus, your workflow will be something like:
Prepare file for branch-mapping
Clone|pull from fork to local repository
Convert cloned repo, using branchmap, into repository with good naming of branch(es)
Push result of convert into your Bitbucket0repository
Or consider using bookmarks instead of named branches. Then you can move their changesets into your develop bookmark without any of its past default-ness showing through.
hey're not entirely crazy for wanting to develop in the default branch; it's the standard advice: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/StandardBranching#Don.27t_use_a_name_other_than_default_for_your_main_development_branch
Nearly every issue I file on gh refers to code on a particular branch. Does github have any mechanism to link an issue to the branch?
I need to filter issues by branch, so I am not distracted by issues in other feature branches.
Is there a way to do this? I know milestones can be (ab)used to reach a similar effect, but things get really confusing when the branch becomes a pull request and it shows up as another issue.
References
Often times issues are dependent on other issues, or at least relate to them and you’d like to connect the two. You can reference issues by typing in a hashtag plus the issue number.
Hey #kneath, I think the problem started in #42
Issue in another repository? Just include the repository before the name like kneath/example-project#42.
One of the more interesting ways to use GitHub Issues is to reference issues directly from commits. Include the issue number inside of the commit message.
By prefacing your commits with “Fixes”, “Fixed”, “Fix”, “Closes”, “Closed”, or “Close” when the commit is merged into master, it will also automatically close the issue.
References make it possible to deeply connect the work being done with the bug being tracked, and are a great way to add visibility into the history of your project.
Since March 2022, you can:
Create a branch for an issue
You can now create a branch directly from an issue to begin development work that's correlated to that issue.
Branches connected to an issue are shown under the "Development" section, which has replaced "Linked pull requests", in the sidebar of an issue.
When you create a pull request for one of these branches, it is automatically linked to the issue.
For more information, see the documentation.
Here is an animated image showing how a branch is created for an issue.
After creation, the linked branch is shown in the Development section:
The OP asked:
I need to filter issues by branch, so I am not distracted by issues in other feature branches.
It is still in public beta, but the new Development section can help you list branches associated to issues:
So for any issue you need to work on, create a new branch:
Use labels to organize issues. They aren't inherently branch-specific, but you could make a tag for each branch if that is how you want them organized.
When you have admin access to the repository, there should be a button called 'manage labels' on the issue page. That will let you add, modify, or delete labels. You can apply labels to issues a few different ways. One way is to open the issue and click the labels button just to the right of the main body of text for the issue. Once you have created a label, it will appear on the left just above the manage labels button. You can click on each label to view all the issues that have been marked with that label.
I have been doing all my work on the master branch. Since I created my project and pushed it into my Github repository, I have been the only one working on it so I have had no need to fetch.
I want to work on an experimental feature, so I want to create a new branch. When I go to "Team -> Switch To -> New Branch" I see this:
It mentions creating a branch based on a local branch. I have read EGit Local vs. Remote repositories but to be honest I am quite confused by it. I'm not sure if I should be fetching or cloning because both are mentioned there, and even then I'm not sure how I would do it (like I said, as I am the only contributor to this project all I've had to do so far is commit and push).
And even then, I'm not sure if Rebase, Merge, None should be my pull strategy as shown in the screenshot?
I was hoping I could just create a new branch, commit and push like I normally do and then switch back to my master branch when I didn't want to work on my experimental feature. It seems like it's much more complicated than that.
I'd like to be able to do this through Eclipse so I learn how for the future, but will it be easier if I just do this on the Git command line? Thanks in advance.
It sounds like what you want is to create your (local) branch based the remote/origin master (use the drop-down list at the top) and then select Merge as your pull strategy. That way when you are working on the branch and pull, it will pull from master and merge any changes directly into the branch. It also allows you to push the branch to remote, which give you another level of safety in case your local repo gets lost or messes up somehow.
Another piece of advice I've learned the hard way: whenever I'm about to do something with git that I'm not totally confident about, I make a quick ZIP or copy of my local repo. That way it's easy to throw away whatever I did and go back to a good state. Sad that git drives us to such measures, isn't it?