-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 146
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for forks #88
Open
ojarjur
wants to merge
40
commits into
master
Choose a base branch
from
ojarjur/forks
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change is the first step in making `git-appraise` support the concept of `forks`: remote repositories used by contributors who cannot push to the main repository. This initial change only adds the user documentation around forks. This allows us to scope out the feature while making sure that the end user experience is simple, consistent, and complete. Later commits will add tests and implement the new feature.
…ith the `request` reviewer flag
…ork when there are no changes to a fork
ojarjur
force-pushed
the
ojarjur/forks
branch
from
November 13, 2018 21:49
b7fdb3f
to
4f4956c
Compare
ojarjur
added a commit
to google/distributed-git-forks
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 13, 2019
This repository implements distributed tracking and management of git forks by storing the list of forks in the repository itself. The idea behind this was first proposed as a feature of [`git-appraise`](google/git-appraise#88), but is being split out into a standalone feature after it became clear that the functionality was useful in more contexts than just for code review.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This change adds the concept of "forks" to git-appraise.
The underlying idea is that each contributor can have their own personal repository to which they push, and that the overarching repository can be viewed as a compilation of those separate repositories.
In essence, we are adding symbolic links to other repositories inside the repo itself, and then resolving those links on the client side.
Each entry in this collection of symbolic links is what we call a "fork", and the collection includes all of the information that a client needs to know how to fetch from each fork and which notes should be merged from each fork.
By doing this, we unlock the ability to perform reviews across multiple remote repositories, and even entirely separate hosting providers.
For example, one contributor could have a repository that they push to on GitHub, another can have one on GitLab, and a third could have one stored in GitTorrent, and all three could push to their respective repositories while reviewing code from each other.
This fixes #71