Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A better pull request

developer.atlassian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 167 posts

Re: A better pull request

#21

Post by toong »

fenomas wrote: post #7

Seems quite sensible. This, some commentary on forking[1] I ran across the other day, and the way SourceTree is miles beyond github's client, all make me suspect I should be at least trying out bitbucket. But since literally everything I collaborate with is on github, I've not gotten around to it. Am I missing out, or does bitbucket have its own weak spots? [1] http://zbowling.github.io/blog/2011/11/25/github/

What about in-repo code search ?

https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issue/2874/ability-to-sear...

Re: A better pull request

#22

Post by caust1c »

russell_h wrote: post #17
jbrooksuk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On GitHub you can have tests run before you've merged, so you know whether it's safe or not.

Don't the tests just run on the branch before the merge? If so, you wouldn't actually see the failure until after you merge.

You can do either. Or both if you really want.

    $ git ls-remote
    From https://github.com/cyaninc/git-fat.git
    4c86c39bb5fca55a692d11680ed62fd5cb183921	refs/pull/14/head
    cb850f9d0bd09f8bb903e1c5959cef24ceb51695	refs/pull/14/merge
The merge ref is what the code would be if you merged it.

Re: A better pull request

#23

Post by maaaats »

hk__2 wrote: post #12
brodney wrote: post #3

I really like the idea of merge conflicts being resolved in the open in a pull request, instead of the pull requester working in seclusion. For those of us with projects on GitHub, is there any way to replicate this behavior there?

A common practice is for pull requesters to rebase their branch on the upstream branch to avoid these conflicts.

But if the master/upstream is changed, the feature branch must be updated again (manually).

Re: A better pull request

#24

Post by jessaustin »

puls wrote: post #18

This is so telling: GitHub had a blog post yesterday[1] about pull requests and now Atlassian does today with a very similar title. The one from GitHub was about social dynamics and how to work together better, while the one from Atlassian is about technical minutiae. Having used both GitHub and Stash, the difference in focus between the two companies comes across plainly, and these two blog posts only back it up. [1…

Atlassian are talking about a real problem here, which problem they appear to have solved. Working code is usually superior to social convention (rebase, etc.); that's why we're using git (or possibly other DVCSs) instead of RCS, etc.

Re: A better pull request

#25

Post by tootie »

puls wrote: post #18

This is so telling: GitHub had a blog post yesterday[1] about pull requests and now Atlassian does today with a very similar title. The one from GitHub was about social dynamics and how to work together better, while the one from Atlassian is about technical minutiae. Having used both GitHub and Stash, the difference in focus between the two companies comes across plainly, and these two blog posts only back it up. [1…

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Re: A better pull request

#26

Post by masklinn »

russell_h wrote: post #17
jbrooksuk wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On GitHub you can have tests run before you've merged, so you know whether it's safe or not.

Don't the tests just run on the branch before the merge? If so, you wouldn't actually see the failure until after you merge.

> Don't the tests just run on the branch before the merge?

The merge button is only green if github could generate a merge commit, and that merge commit is made available. You can run your tests on either the branch before merge or the branch after merge, as you prefer.

You may want to do both and have the former block the latter: the merged head is going to change (and require a re-test) any time the target branch gets a new commit, no point in wasting cycle if the branch's own tests don't pass in the first place.

Re: A better pull request

#27

Post by mkinsella »

tootie wrote: post #25
puls wrote: post #18

This is so telling: GitHub had a blog post yesterday[1] about pull requests and now Atlassian does today with a very similar title. The one from GitHub was about social dynamics and how to work together better, while the one from Atlassian is about technical minutiae. Having used both GitHub and Stash, the difference in focus between the two companies comes across plainly, and these two blog posts only back it up. [1…

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.

Re: A better pull request

#28

Post by melvinmt »

fenomas wrote: post #7

Seems quite sensible. This, some commentary on forking[1] I ran across the other day, and the way SourceTree is miles beyond github's client, all make me suspect I should be at least trying out bitbucket. But since literally everything I collaborate with is on github, I've not gotten around to it. Am I missing out, or does bitbucket have its own weak spots? [1] http://zbowling.github.io/blog/2011/11/25/github/

I use bitbucket mainly to host all my private repos (unlimited free private repos) and use github for my public ones. I'm not sure what the tradeoffs are regarding features (so far I'm not missing anything on bitbucket) but it's still git so the core things are still the same.

Re: A better pull request

#29

Post by Dirlewanger »

mkinsella wrote: post #27
tootie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.

You'd think more start-ups/mid-size ones would use Bitbucket since they have free private repos. I'm guessing the social allure of Github and its superior repo/pull request UI is what trumps Bitbucket to that end.

Re: A better pull request

#30

Post by Alupis »

mkinsella wrote: post #27
tootie wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It speaks to github's prominence in the open source community and Atlassians's prominence in professional/enterprise environments.

Are there that many non-enterprise companies using Bitbucket over Github? Most startups and mid-sized companies I know use Github for private repo hosting.

Bitbucket provides free private repos, and for smaller development teams and/or companies not wanting to deal with the cost of Github (which does admittedly grow exponentially the more repos you require), Bitbucket is a fine choice.

When we were making the decision at my company, we went with Github because the dev team cared about having the little green squares show up on the "activity" chart for their account's... I know, petty, but it's something, and since most of us do FOSS projects, it's a status thing.

It used to be any commit that made it into a repo's master branch, the green squares showed up, even if it was a private repo (it just didn't show details of the repo to public users). But now, those don't show up to the public, only the user themselves sees them while logged in... so if we were making the decision today, I'd probably lean towards Bitbucket.

Post reply on HN