New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Button to allow us to 'sync'/pull upstream changes for forked repos #121

Open
0xdevalias opened this Issue Nov 13, 2013 · 152 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@0xdevalias

0xdevalias commented Nov 13, 2013

Firstly, I know this can be done through git fetch/merge/push (as outlined at Github Help: Syncing a Fork)

I figured this would be a convenient feature given that we can fork/edit/submit pull requests all from the browser these days. But once we've forked something, to keep it up to date we have to drop back to command line/client.

Obviously this would require a bit more effort/engineering in places where a fast-forward merge isn't possible.

My 2c.

(Will be sending this to support@github.com shortly Sent!)

@albertosantini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertosantini

albertosantini May 16, 2014

I second @alias1 feature request.

Feature Abstract

It would be nice updating a forked project, pulling the upstream commits to the origin without a terminal or a local git repository.

As (web) workaround, you need to delete the fork and forking again the project.

Use case

Imagine I have not a terminal or I am behind a company proxy (and I am too lazy to set a token or to authorize the company email) or I am using an internet cafe connection.

I have only a browser and I need to submit a PR on a forked project of mine.

Firstly I need to pull the latest commits from the upstream.

Proposal

To add a button close to the list of the branches to pull that branch (only fast forward) from upstream.

(email to GitHub support sent)

albertosantini commented May 16, 2014

I second @alias1 feature request.

Feature Abstract

It would be nice updating a forked project, pulling the upstream commits to the origin without a terminal or a local git repository.

As (web) workaround, you need to delete the fork and forking again the project.

Use case

Imagine I have not a terminal or I am behind a company proxy (and I am too lazy to set a token or to authorize the company email) or I am using an internet cafe connection.

I have only a browser and I need to submit a PR on a forked project of mine.

Firstly I need to pull the latest commits from the upstream.

Proposal

To add a button close to the list of the branches to pull that branch (only fast forward) from upstream.

(email to GitHub support sent)

@albertosantini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertosantini

albertosantini May 16, 2014

From GitHub support:

Thanks for the suggestion. We've had this requested before, so I've added a +1 to this item on our internal Feature Request List. We can't promise if we might add something like this, however your feedback is definitely appreciated.

albertosantini commented May 16, 2014

From GitHub support:

Thanks for the suggestion. We've had this requested before, so I've added a +1 to this item on our internal Feature Request List. We can't promise if we might add something like this, however your feedback is definitely appreciated.

@mrec

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrec

mrec May 27, 2014

Thirded. It turns out there is a way to do this via the browser UI, as described in this StackOverflow answer. However:

  1. It's monumentally unintuitive.
  2. Merging your own PR shows up as a contribution in your activity history, which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole concept.

What's weird about this missing feature is that GitHub appears to have implemented it at one point back in 2008, and then removed it for reasons unknown. Frustrating.

mrec commented May 27, 2014

Thirded. It turns out there is a way to do this via the browser UI, as described in this StackOverflow answer. However:

  1. It's monumentally unintuitive.
  2. Merging your own PR shows up as a contribution in your activity history, which makes a bit of a mockery of the whole concept.

What's weird about this missing feature is that GitHub appears to have implemented it at one point back in 2008, and then removed it for reasons unknown. Frustrating.

@Mithgol

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Mithgol

Mithgol May 28, 2014

Wow. Deep magic. Impressive.

Mithgol commented May 28, 2014

Wow. Deep magic. Impressive.

@cirosantilli

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cirosantilli

cirosantilli Sep 7, 2014

Collaborator

Web API Pull request resolution request: #200

Collaborator

cirosantilli commented Sep 7, 2014

Web API Pull request resolution request: #200

@navarr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@navarr

navarr Jan 28, 2015

I just sent support a very similar feature request, included below:


Being able to fork a repository is a massively helpful feature that allows users to help contribute to open source - but an interesting problem, at least for multiple contributions, is how easy it is for their local fork to get out of sync with upstream (provided that they aren't trying to maintain an actual "fork")

So my request/suggestion is a way to sync with upstream's master. There are a couple of ways to solve this, and one or all could theoretically be implemented.

Idea #1: Allow users to fork existing branches as read-only and essentially make them a symlink to the upstream branch. This would encourage more casual contributors to fork the upstream so they may submit pull requests against it's main branches without having to keep their own copy up-to-date.

Idea #2: If a fork of a branch can be fast-forwarded from the parent's same branch, add a "sync" button that does the same thing as a pull request but without the merge commit - as it is silly to --no-ff when you're keeping a branch in sync with upstream.


Since this FR is essentially Idea 2 - should I create a separate issue for idea 1?

navarr commented Jan 28, 2015

I just sent support a very similar feature request, included below:


Being able to fork a repository is a massively helpful feature that allows users to help contribute to open source - but an interesting problem, at least for multiple contributions, is how easy it is for their local fork to get out of sync with upstream (provided that they aren't trying to maintain an actual "fork")

So my request/suggestion is a way to sync with upstream's master. There are a couple of ways to solve this, and one or all could theoretically be implemented.

Idea #1: Allow users to fork existing branches as read-only and essentially make them a symlink to the upstream branch. This would encourage more casual contributors to fork the upstream so they may submit pull requests against it's main branches without having to keep their own copy up-to-date.

Idea #2: If a fork of a branch can be fast-forwarded from the parent's same branch, add a "sync" button that does the same thing as a pull request but without the merge commit - as it is silly to --no-ff when you're keeping a branch in sync with upstream.


Since this FR is essentially Idea 2 - should I create a separate issue for idea 1?

@ILI4S

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ILI4S

ILI4S May 20, 2015

"Fast Forward Your Work" is a crucial feature.

Color me astonished that it don't doesn't already exist on github.

ILI4S commented May 20, 2015

"Fast Forward Your Work" is a crucial feature.

Color me astonished that it don't doesn't already exist on github.

@vorburger

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vorburger

vorburger Jun 23, 2015

+1 ... this would be nice and very useful in some use cases. Tx @mrec for the S.O. tip, useful workaround.

vorburger commented Jun 23, 2015

+1 ... this would be nice and very useful in some use cases. Tx @mrec for the S.O. tip, useful workaround.

@thread13

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thread13

thread13 commented Jun 26, 2015

+1

@jawinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jawinn

jawinn Jul 3, 2015

Thirded. It turns out there is a way to do this via the browser UI, as described in this StackOverflow answer. However:
It's monumentally unintuitive.

This.

jawinn commented Jul 3, 2015

Thirded. It turns out there is a way to do this via the browser UI, as described in this StackOverflow answer. However:
It's monumentally unintuitive.

This.

@michellemay

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@michellemay

michellemay Aug 13, 2015

I would add that it is painfull to do this git fetch/merge/push for multiple branches!
We need a "keep my fork in sync with all upstream branches"! I hate having a fork go out of sync and I always end-up deleting my fork and starting over again! This is counter productive for the fork/branch/commit/pullrequest workflow..

michellemay commented Aug 13, 2015

I would add that it is painfull to do this git fetch/merge/push for multiple branches!
We need a "keep my fork in sync with all upstream branches"! I hate having a fork go out of sync and I always end-up deleting my fork and starting over again! This is counter productive for the fork/branch/commit/pullrequest workflow..

@serapath

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@serapath

serapath commented Aug 13, 2015

+1

@Gazzonyx

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Gazzonyx

Gazzonyx Sep 18, 2015

The worst part of the web workflow is as follows :
Let's pretend I have forked https://github.com/samba-team/samba and I want to update the README with instructions on how to use GitHub to submit patches (Hey! That's exactly the simple task I want to do! What are the chances?).
First I sync up to upstream and then create a branch for this change. Then I make the change and send a pull request. Now my sync commit is part of the pull request that does nothing (because it's all the same) and has nothing to do with the README change. Hooray! Confusion ensues. And so help you when you find out that the online editor wraps differently than the README is displayed in the same space. Now we're just piling on to the pull request.

From my point of view, syncing should be squashed from pull requests when the target is the source of the sync. IE, downstream syncs never get added to upstream pull requests when that upstream was the source of the sync.

Gazzonyx commented Sep 18, 2015

The worst part of the web workflow is as follows :
Let's pretend I have forked https://github.com/samba-team/samba and I want to update the README with instructions on how to use GitHub to submit patches (Hey! That's exactly the simple task I want to do! What are the chances?).
First I sync up to upstream and then create a branch for this change. Then I make the change and send a pull request. Now my sync commit is part of the pull request that does nothing (because it's all the same) and has nothing to do with the README change. Hooray! Confusion ensues. And so help you when you find out that the online editor wraps differently than the README is displayed in the same space. Now we're just piling on to the pull request.

From my point of view, syncing should be squashed from pull requests when the target is the source of the sync. IE, downstream syncs never get added to upstream pull requests when that upstream was the source of the sync.

@jakirkham

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jakirkham

jakirkham Oct 20, 2015

It looks like there now is an update branch button. So, this may already be solved.

jakirkham commented Oct 20, 2015

It looks like there now is an update branch button. So, this may already be solved.

@albertosantini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertosantini

albertosantini Oct 20, 2015

@jakirkham agreed.

We can close this issue.

albertosantini commented Oct 20, 2015

@jakirkham agreed.

We can close this issue.

@navarr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@navarr

navarr Oct 20, 2015

Where is this new button?

navarr commented Oct 20, 2015

Where is this new button?

@mrec

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mrec

mrec Oct 20, 2015

@jakirkham @albertosantini are you sure?

I'm reading https://github.com/blog/2051-protected-branches-and-required-status-checks and I can see an "Update" button in repo Settings/Branches, but that looks to me like it only applies to branches from a master in the same repo, not forks from a remote repo. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

mrec commented Oct 20, 2015

@jakirkham @albertosantini are you sure?

I'm reading https://github.com/blog/2051-protected-branches-and-required-status-checks and I can see an "Update" button in repo Settings/Branches, but that looks to me like it only applies to branches from a master in the same repo, not forks from a remote repo. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

@albertosantini

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertosantini

albertosantini Oct 20, 2015

@mrec Yep, you are right. I was confused. There is not a button for the fork. Sorry for the noise.

albertosantini commented Oct 20, 2015

@mrec Yep, you are right. I was confused. There is not a button for the fork. Sorry for the noise.

@jakirkham

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jakirkham

jakirkham Oct 20, 2015

Must also be confused, I saw PRs and thought that what what we were concerned about here.

jakirkham commented Oct 20, 2015

Must also be confused, I saw PRs and thought that what what we were concerned about here.

@tonybaroneee

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tonybaroneee

tonybaroneee commented Dec 24, 2015

+1

@guillochon

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@guillochon

guillochon Jan 11, 2016

+1, BitBucket has this. Do you really want those BitBucket guys to beat you? ;-)

guillochon commented Jan 11, 2016

+1, BitBucket has this. Do you really want those BitBucket guys to beat you? ;-)

@edwinksl

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@edwinksl

edwinksl commented Jan 18, 2016

👍

@thetiby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thetiby

thetiby commented Jan 18, 2016

👍

@McDutchie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@McDutchie

McDutchie Jan 18, 2016

Another +1 for this feature request. This seems like a pretty basic feature. I just spent half an hour fruitlessly looking for it. I'm rather astonished it's not included in the GUI.

McDutchie commented Jan 18, 2016

Another +1 for this feature request. This seems like a pretty basic feature. I just spent half an hour fruitlessly looking for it. I'm rather astonished it's not included in the GUI.

@thetiby

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@thetiby

thetiby Jan 20, 2016

@isaacs if there's a more involved reason for this not being implemented (other than not being a priority), please share it with us, I'm sure that some useful ideas will pop eventually
sorry, I didn't read the repo description; I thought that you were a github dev

thetiby commented Jan 20, 2016

@isaacs if there's a more involved reason for this not being implemented (other than not being a priority), please share it with us, I'm sure that some useful ideas will pop eventually
sorry, I didn't read the repo description; I thought that you were a github dev

@jakirkham

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jakirkham

jakirkham Jan 20, 2016

I hope everyone that is +1-ing this realizes that they still need to email GitHub support. To quote the README of this repo.

This is not the actual repository for the GitHub website.
...
you should also email support@github.com, since this repo is strictly for our own (unofficial) tracking purposes.

jakirkham commented Jan 20, 2016

I hope everyone that is +1-ing this realizes that they still need to email GitHub support. To quote the README of this repo.

This is not the actual repository for the GitHub website.
...
you should also email support@github.com, since this repo is strictly for our own (unofficial) tracking purposes.

@qualidafial

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@qualidafial

qualidafial Jan 25, 2016

Sent to github support:

I'd like to add my voice to the folks on #121

When a branch is behind the upstream project and there are no new commits on the fork, I would very much like to have a button which pulls and fast-forwards the branch to sync it with the upstream project.

The lack of this button adds unnecessary tedium to maintaining forks, particularly when one forks a popular and active project.

Edit: Response from GH support:

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to write in with your support for this feature request! I'll make a note of this for the team to consider when making improvements.

Cheers,
Alex

qualidafial commented Jan 25, 2016

Sent to github support:

I'd like to add my voice to the folks on #121

When a branch is behind the upstream project and there are no new commits on the fork, I would very much like to have a button which pulls and fast-forwards the branch to sync it with the upstream project.

The lack of this button adds unnecessary tedium to maintaining forks, particularly when one forks a popular and active project.

Edit: Response from GH support:

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for taking the time to write in with your support for this feature request! I'll make a note of this for the team to consider when making improvements.

Cheers,
Alex

@wkcwells

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wkcwells

wkcwells commented Feb 12, 2016

+1. Emailed support@github.com.

@juggernate

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@juggernate

juggernate commented Feb 17, 2016

👍

@isedwards

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@isedwards

isedwards Feb 21, 2016

+1. I've also emailed support@github.com

"We're regularly working with new programers, and for months we've been desperate to find a way to allow them to easily keep their fork in sync with upstream." ...

isedwards commented Feb 21, 2016

+1. I've also emailed support@github.com

"We're regularly working with new programers, and for months we've been desperate to find a way to allow them to easily keep their fork in sync with upstream." ...

@amitdo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@amitdo

amitdo commented Feb 23, 2018

@obadz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@obadz

obadz Feb 24, 2018

@amitdo, so that feature used to exist but was removed?

obadz commented Feb 24, 2018

@amitdo, so that feature used to exist but was removed?

@jtoy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jtoy

jtoy Feb 24, 2018

I can only guess it is some business reason they removed it versus a technical reason which is probably why github won't at least explain why this feature is not here, even though so many people want it.

jtoy commented Feb 24, 2018

I can only guess it is some business reason they removed it versus a technical reason which is probably why github won't at least explain why this feature is not here, even though so many people want it.

@whizzzkid

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@whizzzkid

whizzzkid Feb 28, 2018

I just came across this thread. I wrote a chrome extension for myself which automatically generates the PR which syncs the fork with upstream. https://github.com/whizzzkid/github-sync-fork-chrome-ext

I just published it to the chrome webstore: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github-sync-fork/omjaffmdnnkgmbbjmdalehkjcaklleii/

I guess this will work for most of you, however this process may generate unwanted merge commits which will have to be removed before submitting a PR to a project.

whizzzkid commented Feb 28, 2018

I just came across this thread. I wrote a chrome extension for myself which automatically generates the PR which syncs the fork with upstream. https://github.com/whizzzkid/github-sync-fork-chrome-ext

I just published it to the chrome webstore: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/github-sync-fork/omjaffmdnnkgmbbjmdalehkjcaklleii/

I guess this will work for most of you, however this process may generate unwanted merge commits which will have to be removed before submitting a PR to a project.

@Brad-Stiritz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Brad-Stiritz

Brad-Stiritz Mar 22, 2018

jtoy : I can only guess it is some business reason they removed it versus a technical reason which is probably why github won't at least explain why this feature is not here, even though so many people want it.

+1 This is a very insightful observation. What are people's thoughts on the business angle here?

Brad-Stiritz commented Mar 22, 2018

jtoy : I can only guess it is some business reason they removed it versus a technical reason which is probably why github won't at least explain why this feature is not here, even though so many people want it.

+1 This is a very insightful observation. What are people's thoughts on the business angle here?

@karoofish

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karoofish

karoofish Apr 10, 2018

Just to add my name to the list of ever hopeful souls waiting (hopefully not in vain) for an answer on this issue. Its such an obvious requirement one has to wonder why nothing has been done on it, considering others like gitlab etc have it.

karoofish commented Apr 10, 2018

Just to add my name to the list of ever hopeful souls waiting (hopefully not in vain) for an answer on this issue. Its such an obvious requirement one has to wonder why nothing has been done on it, considering others like gitlab etc have it.

@peterennis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@peterennis

peterennis Apr 10, 2018

@karoofish See @whizzzkid reply above.
Chrome plugin. I use it and it works well.

peterennis commented Apr 10, 2018

@karoofish See @whizzzkid reply above.
Chrome plugin. I use it and it works well.

@karoofish

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@karoofish

karoofish Apr 10, 2018

@peterennis @whizzzkid Great, I just foxified it and it works for me on the latest dev firefox. 👍

(Use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/)

karoofish commented Apr 10, 2018

@peterennis @whizzzkid Great, I just foxified it and it works for me on the latest dev firefox. 👍

(Use https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/)

@peterennis

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@peterennis

peterennis Apr 10, 2018

@karoofish, I am interested to know how to foxify things. Pointers welcome!

peterennis commented Apr 10, 2018

@karoofish, I am interested to know how to foxify things. Pointers welcome!

@necrose99

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@necrose99

necrose99 May 3, 2018

ADD SUBSCRIBE....
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo

ok fork I wana make an ebuild pull DOIT i just forked the repo like 10 mins ago...
already your fork is out of sync pull for new ebuild FAILS ... this or linux kernel git etc really popular
you blink and you missed em.

you-master / their master Merge ... pull done..

necrose99 commented May 3, 2018

ADD SUBSCRIBE....
https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo

ok fork I wana make an ebuild pull DOIT i just forked the repo like 10 mins ago...
already your fork is out of sync pull for new ebuild FAILS ... this or linux kernel git etc really popular
you blink and you missed em.

you-master / their master Merge ... pull done..

@MartinLechner-TD

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MartinLechner-TD

MartinLechner-TD May 23, 2018

+1 This sync button would be very helpful for beginners.

MartinLechner-TD commented May 23, 2018

+1 This sync button would be very helpful for beginners.

@styfle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@styfle

styfle May 23, 2018

Do you want this feature?

  1. Go to the top comment
  2. Click the 👍
  3. Send an email to GitHub Support requesting this feature

styfle commented May 23, 2018

Do you want this feature?

  1. Go to the top comment
  2. Click the 👍
  3. Send an email to GitHub Support requesting this feature
@FunctionPoint

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FunctionPoint

FunctionPoint Jul 1, 2018

Yes, please implement this feature!
Microsoft SourceSafe from 1995 does this better.
It's really frustrating that this is left open so long.
.
(Until then, I'll just keep completely deleting and re-forking my repo every week or so)

FunctionPoint commented Jul 1, 2018

Yes, please implement this feature!
Microsoft SourceSafe from 1995 does this better.
It's really frustrating that this is left open so long.
.
(Until then, I'll just keep completely deleting and re-forking my repo every week or so)

@josh-padnick

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@josh-padnick

josh-padnick Jul 26, 2018

This feature is a significant omission from GitHub Enterprise. BitBucket has the ability to automatically keep forks syched on a rolling basis, and so does GitLab. Ironically, I suspect the most common use case for these features is because users wanted to fork an open source repo from GitHub but had no way to keep it up to date, whereas GitHub Enterprise itself does not allow this!

I'm writing from Gruntwork, and our business model is to sell access to our private GitHub repos. We often have users who run GitHub Enterprise and want to run all their code from GitHub Enterprise, but we have no way to accommodate them except by hacking together our own fork syncing tool.

josh-padnick commented Jul 26, 2018

This feature is a significant omission from GitHub Enterprise. BitBucket has the ability to automatically keep forks syched on a rolling basis, and so does GitLab. Ironically, I suspect the most common use case for these features is because users wanted to fork an open source repo from GitHub but had no way to keep it up to date, whereas GitHub Enterprise itself does not allow this!

I'm writing from Gruntwork, and our business model is to sell access to our private GitHub repos. We often have users who run GitHub Enterprise and want to run all their code from GitHub Enterprise, but we have no way to accommodate them except by hacking together our own fork syncing tool.

@FunctionPoint

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FunctionPoint

FunctionPoint Jul 26, 2018

FYI, This is my silly script to do what GitHub should do better, out of the box:
(To be executed in the repo folder you want to sync with upstream)
git rebase upstream/master
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git pull
git push origin master
pause

FunctionPoint commented Jul 26, 2018

FYI, This is my silly script to do what GitHub should do better, out of the box:
(To be executed in the repo folder you want to sync with upstream)
git rebase upstream/master
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git rebase --skip
git pull
git push origin master
pause

@AminuSufi585

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AminuSufi585

AminuSufi585 Aug 7, 2018

Yes, they should @FunctionPoint
Please, a little explanation of your script. Why all that multiple git rebase --skip?

AminuSufi585 commented Aug 7, 2018

Yes, they should @FunctionPoint
Please, a little explanation of your script. Why all that multiple git rebase --skip?

@wei

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@wei

wei Aug 7, 2018

@AminuSufi585

You're welcome to use Pull app which syncs forks automatically using Github Apps.

Give it a ⭐️ if you like it. Thanks!

wei commented Aug 7, 2018

@AminuSufi585

You're welcome to use Pull app which syncs forks automatically using Github Apps.

Give it a ⭐️ if you like it. Thanks!

@FunctionPoint

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@FunctionPoint

FunctionPoint Aug 7, 2018

@AminuSufi585 I saw the first skip is not always complete.
The option to really skip was to do it again.
Don't have the exact message anymore.
6 times should be enough...

FunctionPoint commented Aug 7, 2018

@AminuSufi585 I saw the first skip is not always complete.
The option to really skip was to do it again.
Don't have the exact message anymore.
6 times should be enough...

@AminuSufi585

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AminuSufi585

AminuSufi585 Aug 8, 2018

Oh I get the logic... Hahah @FunctionPoint

AminuSufi585 commented Aug 8, 2018

Oh I get the logic... Hahah @FunctionPoint

@AminuSufi585

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@AminuSufi585

AminuSufi585 Aug 8, 2018

Great one! @wei it was amazing!!!

AminuSufi585 commented Aug 8, 2018

Great one! @wei it was amazing!!!

@alexivkin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alexivkin

alexivkin Aug 13, 2018

Frustrated with the lack of the native feature and the upriver app I wrote my own fork syncing app - https://forkrefresh.herokuapp.com/

It's got a lot more intuitive UI and can update your forks all together.

alexivkin commented Aug 13, 2018

Frustrated with the lack of the native feature and the upriver app I wrote my own fork syncing app - https://forkrefresh.herokuapp.com/

It's got a lot more intuitive UI and can update your forks all together.

@csBlueChip

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@csBlueChip

csBlueChip commented Aug 20, 2018

+1

@iEchoic

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iEchoic

iEchoic commented Aug 24, 2018

+1

@raamana

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@raamana

raamana commented Aug 24, 2018

+1

@elharo

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@elharo

elharo commented Sep 6, 2018

+1

@adey

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@adey

adey commented Sep 11, 2018

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment