You may simply clone your fork because the synchronization between it and the upstream repository is done automatically if you are contributing using Iceberg. When you are creating a branch from your image commit, Iceberg fetches the main Pharo repository to obtain information about the required commit and your fork is updated as soon as you commit the fix. The same thing is true for the other projects too as soon as you clone the repository using the option "Clone From github.com" because this operation uses the GitHub API to obtain information about the repository from which your repository was forked. It is not the case for the option "Clone remote repository".
To contribute to Pharo, follow this documentation: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/wiki/Contribute-a-fix-to-Pharo Cheers, -- Pavel po 21. 1. 2019 v 16:59 odesÃlatel Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> napsal: > I'm not sure how closely my contribution workflow matches the standard > advertised, so just wanted to share it for feedback. I may remember > wrongly, but my understanding of the advertised process was forking the > "pharo-project/pharo" repo, then cloning from my fork. However I found it > awkward to keep the "master" branch of my fork synchronised with upstream. > > What I ended up finding easiest is *always* cloning "pharo-project/pharo" > then adding my "bencoman/pharo" repo as a remote. Iceberg then makes it > simple to push just my working branches to my fork from where I can issue a > PR. I never need to trouble synchronising the master branch in my fork. > > How does that compare to your contribution workflow? > > cheers -ben >
