offer to fork the original repo when adding a private remote with your own name

[mislav]

I've implemented it in 3c8c8df

Let me know if you like it so I can add tests

[mislav]

I said "clone" instead of "fork" in the original commit message. I've force-pushed a new commit: 840dcd5

[defunkt]

Love it.

[defunkt]

It might be best to add this as a git-fork command first. Then add the prompt to git-remote.

[mislav]

I suck at testing command line tools, especially prompts. Any pointers would be helpful.

[ryanb]

@mislav I've used this MockIO class for testing interactive commands. It is a way to test at a high level and interact with it just like the user would. It's probably overkill for this but just thought I'd mention it.

For simple cases, mocking the gets/puts methods with Mocha would probably be sufficient.

[mislav]

Thanks, I still remember your community challenge :)

I solved it as defunkt suggested; IO.pipe, the same way they're capturing stdout from a forked process. I'll push soon so you'll see

[ryanb]

I look forward to seeing it. I hadn't considered IO.pipe for this. I may need to update the challenge solutions to include this.

[mislav]

I have pushed my feature branch "fork". Ryan, you were interested in the test helper (it is used in "hub_test.rb")

[mislav]

Now to document what defunkt and I have been discussing: the fact that hub remote add -p mislav prompts me to create a fork seems weird to defunkt because git is itself very explicit—there are not much prompts (if any). hub should feel like git, and I agree.

defunkt was proposing something in the lines of:

$ hub remote add --fork mislav

The "--fork" flag implies "-p" and launches the hub fork command without prompting.

I, however, have a different idea; just writing this:

$ hub fork

And hub will check if you have an appropriate remote (named "mislav") set up; if not, it will create it with hub remote add -p mislav. To have a remote named differently, one could write:

$ hub fork myremote

What are your opinions? Which feels like the most git-like and is the closest to how you imagine git fork workflow in your head? To me, it would be the last, for I already have a system-wide Thor command "thor github:fork" that makes the fork and creates the remote named "mislav".

[ryanb]

I prefer the simplicity of hub fork. However I don't know if hub is intended to add additional commands or just extend the current ones (?).

[mislav]

I've re-implemented this feature in "fork2" branch. Forking doesn't happen on hub remote add anymore (with or without explicit flag). Instead, there is just the fork command. From the README:

$ git fork
... hardcore forking action ...
> git remote add YOUR_USER git@github.com:YOUR_USER/CURRENT_REPO.git

"Forks the original repo on GitHub and adds the new remote under your username.
It requires your GitHub token to be present; see "GitHub login" below for details."

[mislav]

I've force pushed new commits to the fork2 brach, just a heads up if anyone pulled it already. Nothing new, just split it into a couple of commits and moved unrelated doc fixes elsewhere.

[defunkt]

Just tried out fork2 - worked great!

Is it defaulting to making a private fork right now? It should probably check the visibility of the parent and then match it.

e.g. forking a private repo produces a private repo, forking a public repo produces a public repo

[mislav]

Defaulting to making a private fork? It just uses the fork API without extra arguments. From my experience this creates public forks for opensource projects, but I haven't tried with a private project.

But it does default to adding your private push URL as a new remote, yes.

[defunkt]

I tried to fork a public project and it created a private fork, is why I bring this up.

[defunkt]

Hrm that's confusing, just worked. I'll investigate further later.

[mislav]

Hum! That's strange. My last 4 forks were created with this command and they were never private.

Do you think this should be fixed in the fork command or in the fork API?

[mislav]

Just force-pushed rebased commit to fork2

[mislav]

Pushed again, this time switching from FakeWeb to Webmock for stubbing out HTTP requests. Webmock is a little more featured, allowing me to check if correct Github username/token were passed while forking. It also integrates well with test/unit

[defunkt]

Merged and released in 1.1.0 - thanks!