Monday, July 14, 2014

git clone vs fork

Two words that you'll often hear people say when discussing git are "fork" and "clone".

They are similar; they are related; they are not interchangeable.

The clone operation is built into git: git-clone - Clone a repository into a new directory.

Forking, on the other hand, is an operation which is used by a certain git workflow, made popular by GitHub, called the Fork and Pull Workflow:

The fork & pull model lets anyone fork an existing repository and push changes to their personal fork without requiring access be granted to the source repository. The changes must then be pulled into the source repository by the project maintainer. This model reduces the amount of friction for new contributors and is popular with open source projects because it allows people to work independently without upfront coordination.

The difference between forking and cloning is really a difference in intent and purpose:

  • The forked repository is mostly static. It exists in order to allow you to publish work for code review purposes. You don't do active development in your forked repository (in fact, you can't; because it doesn't exist on your computer, it exists on GitHub's server in the cloud).
  • The cloned repository is your active repo. It is where you do all your work. But other people generally don't have access to your personal cloned repo, because it's on your laptop. So that's why you have the forked repo, so you can push changes to it for others to see and review
This picture from StackOverflow helps a lot: What is the difference between origin and upstream in github.

In this workflow, you both fork and clone: first you fork the repo that you are interested in, so that you have a separate repo that is clearly associated with your GitHub account.

Then, you clone that repo, and do your work. When and if you wish, you may push to your forked repo.

One thing that's sort of interesting is that you never directly update your forked repo from the original ("upstream") repo after the original "fork" operation. Subsequent to that, updates to your forked repo are indirect: you pull from upstream into your cloned repo, to bring it up to date, then (if you wish), you push those changes into your forked repo.

Some additional references:

  • Fork A Repo
    When a repository is cloned, it has a default remote called origin that points to your fork on GitHub, not the original repository it was forked from. To keep track of the original repository, you need to add another remote named upstream.
  • Stash 2.4: Forking in the Enterprise
    In Stash, clicking the ‘Fork’ button on a repository creates a copy that is tracked by Stash and modified independently of the original repository, insulating code from the original repository to unwanted changes or errors.
  • Git Branching and Forking in the Enterprise: Why Fork?
    In recent DVCS terminology a fork is a remote, server-side copy of a repository, distinct from the original. A clone is not a fork; a clone is a local copy of some remote repository.
  • Clone vs. Fork
    if you want to make changes to any of its cookbooks, you will need to fork the repository, which creates an editable copy of the entire repository (including all of its branches and commits) in your own source control management (e.g. GitHub) account. Later, if you want to contribute back to the original project, you can make a pull request to the owner of the original cookbook repository so that your submitted changes can be merged into the main branch.

No comments:

Post a Comment