Include adding upstream?

[gaand]

For those rebase moments.

[RealWeeks]

Actually I'm struggling to come up with a good demo for this.

[RealWeeks]

@gaand upstream added

[jrhorn424]

Do you think this is appropriate scope? I never have students update a talk repo fork after I deliver it.

[RealWeeks]

I was so confused by the discussion until I saw the rename. @berziiii I'm going to rename it back so the conversation makes sense and add a needs discussion tag. For now I'm going to keep it. @jrhorn424 @gaand thoughts on this?

[jrhorn424]

I'm still not sure this makes sense. We could demo it by adding the ga-wdi-boston upstream, I suppose. @payne-chris-r What are your thoughts on showing remotes and upstreams?

Maybe not for rebasing but at least to see the remote commands? @gaand

[payne-chris-r]

Didn't have time to address this for this iteration. I think it's a good idea, and adding the main repo as an upstream is probably a good idea.

[jrhorn424]

@payne-chris-r Looks like it's in there?

[jrhorn424]

Wat?

[gaand]

@J-Weeks When you lead this do the developers usually get through the upstream part?

I need more data to resolve this and #10

[RealWeeks]

They do. If they have merger conflicts however I usually explain them instead of solving due to time.

[jrhorn424]

I'm still in favor of removing this and doing it JIT if it is ever needed.

[payne-chris-r]

JIT = just in time @jrhorn424?

[payne-chris-r]

I think it's ok but maybe better in git-gitworkflow when they've had more experience with git (or whatever the later git lesson is called... Im on my phone)

[MicFin]

Could close and reference from Issue #10