On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 12:11 PM Markus Neteler <nete...@osgeo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:59 PM Panagiotis Mavrogiorgos > <pma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would suggest that: > > > > - even core devs fork the main repo > > - "origin" is the personal remote GRASS repository (e.g. in my case > https://github.com/pmav99/grass) > > - everyone adds the main GRASS repository as a secondary remote (e.g. > "upstream") > > yes, it sounds good to me (while my opinion only counts 0.02 cents here). > > > This way: > > > > 1. You always push to "origin" and you create a Pull Request from the > Github UI > > 2. To get updates you always pull from "upstream" > > 3. You always rebase your code to "upstream/master". > > 4. You don't need separate instructions for non core-devs. > > Updated in a similar way to > > https://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/HowToGit#Workflowforcoredevelopers > Hi, any opinions on what should be the primary and secondary remote? The the fork or upstream? As far as I understood, Bas is suggesting adding the fork, Panos adding the upstream. There does not seem to be that much difference, but the commands are different, so we need to decide for the instructions. GitHub help suggests cloning fork and adding upstream. Syncing to upstream seems more straight forward when cloning upstream and adding to the fork...
_______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
