Hi Gabriel - appreciate your input. I too think that branches for separate features /contributions makes sense.
However when you say “merge all branches on your fork” - is that merge them on main (master) ? But I think that would make it difficult to create your next branch for a clean feature (or am I misunderstanding?) OR perhaps you are confirming my thought that you need a combination branch in your fork that you keep merging too? Interesting that you merge on GitHub - I have submitted PRs that way (the iceberg option never seems to work for me against non Pharo remotes), but not tried merging non trivial st code in GitHub - maybe I should. Tim > On 1 Apr 2021, at 21:39, Gabriel Cotelli <g.cote...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Tim. I prefer to have individual branches for each feature or bug because > it eases the review process for the original project. You can merge all this > branches in your fork if you need it together before they are merged > upstream. > Unless one feature depend on other one. > > I usually do the merge using PRs on GitHub via the web interface or using the > git command line client and didn't find too much problems so far. > >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021, 07:15 Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote: >> Hi Everyone - I tried asking this on Discord, but I think it got a bit lost >> - and perhaps for more philosophical questions, here is better. >> >> So - I’m wondering what is the recommended way to work with another project >> you want to contribute to (in my case CodeParasides). So I know I can fork >> it and put the fork in my baseline. But I’m assuming contributions are best >> done discretely on a branch per proposal (this seems to be the Pharo way - >> and it makes sense for ease of understanding), but if you have a few of >> these contributions in play (while the maintainer is evaluating them) would >> you then have your own “combination” branch to consolidate all those fixes >> until they get merged in? >> >> I’ve started to try this, but merging between branches gets a bit tricky - >> a few times now it seems that Iceberg shows me misleading info on what is >> being added/removed (it always looks like my changes are going to be >> removed, when if fact they get added - so its a bit of a leap of faith on >> this). >> >> So I’m wondering if I’m overcomplicating things - or whether this is the >> suggested way to work with another project? >> >> Tim
