I just found the Mottie/tablesorter repository after implementing the –what I thought to be– original repository from Chrisitian Back.
The description of Mottie's repo says:
Github fork of Christian Bach's tablesorter plugin + awesomeness
Now when reading this, three questions come up:
Why is this one not marked as fork on github (usually if this is a little hint below the repository name if it's a fork - that's missing on this repo)
Is "+ awesomeness" in the repository description something specific (e.g. a JS lib) or is this just some kind of "marketing term" for this repo?
What are the major differences between this repository and the original one from Christian Bach?
Can I easily migrate to Mottie's repo (as it is much more vivid according to its Pulse)? What do I have to watch at when doing so?
As I mentioned in the issue that was opened:
Christian Bach added his GitHub repository on May 20, 2014, whereas my fork was created somewhere around June 2011. So there really isn't a way for me to fork from his repo now. Nothing is missing, except for a few documented changes to the options; but a lot has been added.
"+ awesomeness" was just added to distinguish this fork from the original; especially because most of the widgets available for this fork will not work with the original. I have tried different methods to help distinguish this difference... "+ awesomeness" is just one way. Now the main document page has "unoffical fork" at the top to try to make it more obvious. Eventually, I plan to rename this fork to Abelt (which has lots of breaking changes) to avoid further confusion.
I have some documented differences on the summary wiki page. Sadly, I haven't had the time nor the inclination to update it since version 2.7 (currently we're on v2.18.3). That should at least get you started. Other than that, I feel like the documentation is pretty extensive, so you can always fall back on it if you have questions.
If you have a basic set up working with the original tablesorter, then there is shouldn't be any major changes needed to just swap out the original with the forked version. With a more complex set up, you might have to tweak a few things. Post some code, I'll try to help. It won't be as bad as you think.
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.
Hello I'm new to Github/Gist and I want to use this code, but I need to modify it a little bit. Can i just fork this code and modify it to use it for my own projects? Or do i have to link to the author etc.? Here is the link: https://gist.github.com/learncodeacademy/777349747d8382bfb722
Thank you!
Github repositories are meant to be forked. You don't have to ask an author for permission. Anyway, the gist you linked to has already been forked 30 times.
When you are using a forked repository.It shows up as "forked from xyz". So attribution is automatic. But if you want to, you can always give an extra credit to the author by mentioning it specifically.
Forking a repository on Github, creates an individual copy of the code. This feature is meant to encourage collaboration as well as allow you to experiment with the repositories code. Forking can be used to propose new changes to someone else's code or jumpstart an idea or a new project. As the repository was created by someone else, it is always important to understand the limitations of using their code for your own projects (especially if you plan on selling this product). Every repository created on Github has the chance to create a license file. This file will tell you what you can or cannot do with the forked code. Often open source code is meant to be used and shared with everyone, but it is still good to check. Here is Githubs documentation on forking repositories: https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/. For more information on licensing files see http://choosealicense.com/. Github gists follow the same standard. If you are still worried, it does not hurt to contact the owner of the repository and verify that you can use it for your own projects.
The point of open sourcing code on GitHub is for others to take and use for themselves and learn from it. Also, like fuchsteufelswild said, when forking on GitHub it automatically gives credit to the author so you should be good.
I forked a repository (blog theme) on github, I want to make some changes to it and use it as my site, but I don't want to push those changes to the genuine repo, since the creator probably will not be interested, is that OK?, I mean will this brake any rules?, of course in my readme file I will give credits to the owner etc.
Should I just fork it or is better to clone it locally and then push it on Github as my own project, with credits to the legal owner.
Thank you
Unless they added you as a Collaborator on their repo, you wouldn't be able to push changes to the original (although you could submit Pull Requests).
It's probably more of an "informal rule" that you should fork, but you wouldn't be breaking any rules if you just made a new repo - unless you were violating the license or copyright of the original work.
A benefit of forking would be that you can more easily incorporate future changes to the original author's theme back into your fork (ex. if they fix something that you didn't notice was broken, future new standards compatibility, etc.)
Other benefits of forking include: let the original author know that their work really was useful to someone and let others see that it has been forked, thus validating the usefulness of the work if they're considering using the original work, etc.
So, while the original author might not be interested in your work specifically, there are benefits to you and the community to forking.
I've assumed maintainership for a given project on github. I've done so by cloning the repository of the original authors and pushing my own changes and developments. This was done in accord with the original authors, so they do not expect to work on this in the future. Nevertheless, my repository is marked as a fork of theirs, which makes it appear less official. Is there some way to denote a given repository as official? To swap the relation between my repository and that of the original developers?
I guess I could delete my repository, then ask the original devs to transfer theirs to mine, then let the original devs fork from that, then push my own changes from my local repo. But somehow this feels wrong. It would rely on my local copy. Migration of e.g. the pages branch might be causing extra trouble. I hope there is a cleaner solution.
There doesn't seem to be a clean way to do this.
It seems your best option is to ask GitHub support to convert your repository to "normal mode" as opposed to "forked from" mode.
Another solution is to delete and recreate the repository. However, this can be dangerous, as the wiki and issues data will also be deleted in this process.
If you have further questions about this then let me know in comments and I can amend my answer.