On Monday, November 18, 2013 2:29:41 PM UTC-5, Greg Freeman wrote:
I have an issue with my workflow that I'm trying to resolve. I am a
developer as well as the project maintainer. We are using the forking
workflow so everyone has their own repo then I pull all their changes to my
copy to
Huu you are correct. I left out something that is quite important. I am
using bitbucket/github depending on the project. This fork is through their
site. As far as I understand it, the benefit, besides easy pull requests,
is also so you can push your local changes to a server-side repo without
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:42:28 AM UTC-5, Greg Freeman wrote:
Huu you are correct. I left out something that is quite important. I am
using bitbucket/github depending on the project. This fork is through their
site. As far as I understand it, the benefit, besides easy pull requests,
On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 11:36:30 AM UTC-5, Huu Da Tran wrote:
Then, you put on the maintainer hat, and select the company account's
repo, approve/merge the pull request. This create a new branch. We use this
approach so developers can continue working on the feature if not
In that case, this is what we are doing. We have a corporate account which
is the main repo (this is where the project should be created) and each
developer then fork into their personal account. This could also have
been possible to achieve without such service, but I'll not explain
Now that I'm actually digesting this and trying it out, I'm a bit
confused. I am using source tree, but I will try and speak in more generic
terms.
I forked the main repo through bitbucket ( which has master and develop
branches). This gives me https://myname@bitbucket.org/myname/project
Awesome, I must have overlooked that. That makes much more sense! Thanks!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Git
for human beings group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
