This allows you to work on the repo without the worry of the code or content being updated. When you do this, none of the updates made to the source repo will be reflected to your forked repo unless you decide to sync the two. However, when you fork a repository, you're copying the origin repository to your GitHub account instead of your local machine. That is, if other contributors to the repository make any changes, you can pull those changes to your local machine, updating your copy of the repository with all the changes made. When you clone a repo, you copy that repository to your local machine and are essentially subscribing to any updates made to that repo. Cloning vs Forking: What's the Difference? We explain what the difference is, when you may want to fork instead of clone, and how to do it. While the concept of forking a GitHub repository is similar to cloning, there is an important difference between the two. Cloning vs Forking: What's the Difference?.Yeah, theres unfortunately no way for us to guarantee that other applications on your machine doesnt interfere and register the protocols that we use. See which pull requests pass commit status checks, too Syntax highlighted diffs. even if theyre from upstream branches or forks. Whether youre new to Git or a seasoned user, GitHub Desktop simplifies your development workflow. f one has other tool like 'Tortois Git' it catches the trigger before the Git Desktop app. Focus on what matters instead of fighting with Git. It seems to me that there must be some setting, remote string perhaps (or setting since fork is not a git construct), that tells a repo that it is a fork of another. For more information about when you can create forks, and the permission and visibility settings of forks, see ' About permissions and visibility of forks. Hi meirkr, thanks for getting back to us, we appreciate it. If that was not the case, I have been able merge unrelated repositories before using the command line ( merge -allow-unrelated-histories) but this seems a messy way to resolve the 's issue, as it will create duplicate very similar histories. I was happy to delete the above repos and start again, since the changes I wished to make were trivial. Perhaps it was because Desktop behaviour has changes due to software updates since they were created, and these broke Desktop's and 's 'fork detection' behaviour? When comparing GitHub Desktop vs Fork, the Slant community recommends Fork for most people. I feel like the above replicated the likely processes I used to create the problem clones. It remains a mystery to me what caused the original incarnations of the above two clones not to be able to be converted to or recognised as forks. A fork is a new repository that shares code and visibility settings with the original upstream repository. For information about forking on, see the web browser version of this article. I could however go on to create a pull request via, so success in the end. You can fork a repository on or in GitHub Desktop. On attempting to sync forks via, it recognises they are not in sync, but presumably as I don't have write privileges to upstream, there is no option for me to sync. Although Desktop did not give me the option to create a pull request, so suspicion! On pushing via Desktop I was asked if I wanted to create a fork. This time I made the changes directly in main and committed them. Just to test whether 'not creating a new branch' was the cause of my pain, I then deleted the other repo's github clone etc., and again created a new clone using GitHub Desktop. Success, I have now been able to make changes, commit locally and create a pull request with original upstream repo as the target. ![]() It recognised correctly that I didn't have access to upstream and asked to create a fork at CaverBruce. ![]() I then created a new branch and used GitHub Desktop to publish it. However to test the Github Desktop route (to fork creation) and recover from my immediate impasse I deleted one repo's clone and removed it from Github Desktop, TortoiseGit and local drive, and started afresh creating a clone using GitHub Desktop. ![]() So I'll take on board that best practice is to fork directly using. Although I have four clone/fork pairs of repos that are working perfectly afaik for some years. What you say makes sense, however for two clone/'fork' pairs of repos I cannot replicate this behaviour.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |