To prevent copy/pasting foreign code to my github repository I would like to refer from my project (in specific dir) another project files (of the specific revision)
To make things clear I'd like to achieve situation like in this repo: https://github.com/husio/vim-configuration/tree/master/bundle
How can I do so?
Not sure if it's a github only feature, or somehow git itself supports it.
You are looking for git submodules. It is a feature of git, but GitHub's file browser will resolve submodules when you view them on the site (which is what you can see in the repository you linked to).
Note that while submodules let you choose their location (within your repository), name, and commit (from the submodule's repository), they will include the entire trees of the original repositories. If you only want specific files or directories, check out subtree merge instead.
Related
I'm wondering wheather this is possible with GitHub.
As you can see below, I have two respositories. One is Primary, where I'm writing some of the Common MarkDown files for some of my Projects. Two, is the actual Project Repo, where I want to refer the Markdown file fomr Repo1 as a symlink and render it.
RepoOne -
/abhinavbharadwajr
../absolutebeginner.md
RepoTwo -
/pythonexamples
../Absolute Beginner
../../absolutebeginner.md
Is this Possible? I have seen people creating symlink within a Single Repository, but not like this.
No, that's not possible. First of all, GitHub doesn't check out files from separate repositories on disks. All the repositories are bare, so there's no way to resolve the symlinks outside of the repository. GitHub has no way to know that a repository symlink that points outside of the repository necessarily symlinks to another repository and what that is, since it could point to any possible location.
how is it possible to commit all selected projects from Eclipse to one github repository(as imaged below)?
Currently when I commit my new project to github, a new repository will be created.And I'd like to avoid creating massive number of new repositories.
Thank you in advance!
p.s.I found other related topics for this question, but don't know what I should do exactly.
need your help please.
There shall be an Eclipse plugin that'll do your git job but I'll tell you a generic solution in case that plugin is not helpful. Well, all these selected projects are directories basically and if they're residing inside the same directory, let say <dir-1>, then you can add the remote repo path to <dir-1> using git remote add origin <git-path> and then add all your directories i.e. projects which will be part of the git repo. Best case would be to create separate branches for each of these projects and then merge those branches to master when they reach a logical state without any breaking changes. Now, in case, if all these directories are not residing inside <dir-1> then create a symbolic link inside <dir-1> to all those projects (possibly with same names) so that whenever the original directories are updated these directories are also changed respectively. Check more about symbolic links.
I'm using markdown for the README file in my repositories.
Relative links work well for files in the same repo.
But I want to link a file in a submodule (so that the same version as the submodule is displayed).
The usecase is the following: I have a submodule in external/fancy-lib. In the README.md of my repository I want to add "please refer to fancy-lib's [README](external/fancy-lib/README.md) for info about the required packages", but it generates a non-existent link.
Adding a link to fancy-lib's README from fancy-lib's repository would point to HEAD which is not always the same version included in my repository.
On the other hand, manually updating the link each time the submodule is updated to a new version (git pull) is a burden of maintenance.
Any workaround?
I do not think relative links are going to work. One can always use the full URL though, which is something like
or
https://github.com/<account>/<repo>/blob/<hash>/README.md
I'd like to manage the GitHub wiki for my project at the same time as I'm developing the code. For example:
Branches
master (stable versions)
develop (development of next version)
Others... (Possible other dev / feature branches)
Ideally, I'd like the wiki to be contained in a subfolder (e.g. /wiki) of the project. Then when I'm making changes to the code I can also update the wiki as the same time (code + documentation change). It'd also mean that all my development code and documentation would be self-contained in the "develop" branch until I merge with the "master" branch. Hopefully, even if via a manual process, the GitHub wiki would then be updated after the merge with master to reflect the changes.
I've taken a look at Git's submodule feature, but from what I understand that usually points at a single revision. I'd like to somehow follow my code development so branching and merging would work as normal.
As explained in "True nature of submodules", you can make modifications and updates within a submodule, as long as you commit also the parent repo in order to record the new state of your "wiki" sub-repo.
If you intend to use Gollum to display and work on your GitHub wiki while it's on your local machine (you probably should), then you will have a trouble if you use submodules.
Gollum wants to do local commits to your local Git repository (but not pushes), but in a submodule .git is actually a file containing the local repository, not a true Git repository. This causes Gollum to break.
Submodules also have the problems that the versions aren't coupled to the parent repository, and they aren't completely de-coupled. It a nuisance to have the source code repository to want to push the new wiki version number (but not the wiki contents) every time you make a documentation change.
The solution I use is simply to clone the wiki repository into a directory inside the main project directory and add it to .gitignore. By using a consistent name for the directory across projects (e.g. github-wiki), the chance is minimized that the wiki won't be in .gitignore and gets accidentally uploaded into the main repository.
For consistency, his approach also works well for GitHub pages, although it's unnecessary as they don't experience the problem with Gollum.
I want to store a project in Mercurial that contains external code (which can be modified by me) coming from Git and SVN repositories. In SVN I would solve this with vendor branches and copy the code around, but I understood that in Mercurial it's better to have different repositories for different projects, and pull between them when needed.
The project layout will be like this:
- externalLibraryA [comes from a SVN repo]
- ...with some extra files from me
- externalLibraryB [comes from a SVN repo]
- ...with some extra files from me
- externalPluginForExternalLibraryB [comes from a Git repo]
In Subversion I would create vendor dir and a trunk dir, copy all external libraries first in vendor, and then in the right place in trunk. (I think) I can do this in Mercurial too, with subrepositories, but is this the best way to do this?
I tried setting up different repositories for the external libraries, but then it seems I can't pull the externalLibraryARepo into the externalLibraryA directory of my main repository? It goes in the main directory, which is not what I want. I can also create a Mercurial mirror repository and include it as a subrepo in my main repository, but then the changes in this subdirectory go to the mirror repository, while I want them to stay in the main repository.
I'd probably just store this in one repository - note that in the link you give they are using their build system in the end to bring together the binary output from the different repos. I'm not clear on their rationale there.
If the underlying problem you're trying to solve is how to update the externals in a clean way, I'd probably use anonymous branching for that.
I.e. add the external lib to your project, and your modifications. Make sure it works. Tag with ExternalA-v1.0. Hack away on your actual project. Now ExternalA, Inc. has a new version of their stuff. Update your repo to ExternalA-v1.0 tag. Import their new version and apply your modifications on top. Commit. Now you have two heads: one with the latest version of your code (that works with ExternalA-v1.0) and one with the latest version of ExternalA (that does not work with your code, maybe). So then you merge and reconcile the two. Tag again, now with ExternalA-v2.0. Repeat as needed.
You can still keep your externals in separate repositories, but I assume that the project that is using those does not need to be up to date with changes there all the time - looks like the whole point of vendor branches is to have some point of isolation between dependee and dependants. Of course, moving the changes from the externalA project to the project that is using that will then be a manual affair (well, a copy, much like in SVN really).
It depends on whether your vendor code is going to be customized by your team or not. Our teams have had a great deal of success maintaining a named "vendor" branch on repositories with our own customizations on branches named by project name. This vendor code is then easily included in a project as a subrepository.
A caveat to this approach: if active development is going on in the subrepository, best keep it to directly editing the subrepository as a separate clone, otherwise it becomes necessary to pay close attention to the top-level repository so you don't inadvertantly bump your .hgsubstate forward to the wrong revision and break your build.
Watch out for merges of the top-level repository (your project) between versions which point to different named branches of your subrepository, as this can result in a merge between the "vendor" and "project" branches in the subrepository as it recurses, which may not be desirable.
Note that this functionality may change in the future as well, as some "warm" discussions have been taking place in recent months on the mercurial-devel mailing lists about the future of subrepository recursion.
edit:
I just saw this discussion in the related links as well, which seems relevant: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3998791/1186771