Thanks for chipping in James - its reassuring that I’m not overcomplicating things - however now I need to practice doing this for real - I’ve been doing individual branches for contributions reasonably fine (Iceberg does seem to trip me up from time to time - but can’t quite put my finger on it) - but the next step is to practice that “combination” branch and also how to keep it up to date… that’s the real art in all of this… and will Iceberg help or hinder me in this activity (not to blame Iceberg - its quite a tricky concept in fairness - its just interpreting what its showing that is often the trick).
Tim > On 2 Apr 2021, at 00:52, James Foster <smallt...@jgfoster.net> wrote: > > Tim, > > This is a common open-source situation and what you described seems to me to > be the best practice: (1) changes should be proposed as small, self-contained > branches; (2) you should keep your main/master branch up-to-date with the > upstream repository so that you can create new branches for new pull/merge > requests; and (3) you should create your own branch with the combination of > things you want to include. I don’t know of a way around this. > > James > >> On Apr 1, 2021, at 3:15 AM, 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
