Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    Upvoted; but I have a few minor items to mention: while Git calls origin/master a remote-tracking branch, I think this is a poor name and have started using remote-tracking name instead (though I may never get anywhere in convincing everyone else to do the same :-) ). Remote-tracking names internally are only those starting with refs/remotes/ so if you name things refs/pull/*, those aren't remote-tracking names either, they're a new namespace entirely. Also, it's worth being careful with branch names like -b 123: when you hit 4 digits, they get ambiguous vs hash IDs. Commented Dec 14, 2017 at 19:10
  • @torek I like the idea of not calling them branches since you never commit to them directly. Remote-tracking names is fine but I feel name is a bit too generic. Maybe remote-tracking refs? The ones outside the remote namespace could then simply be remote refs. Thanks for the feedback on the branch name – I agree, so I made it shorter ;) Commented Dec 14, 2017 at 20:54
  • Hi, can I push back to pull/origin/42 remote repository to modify something for my forker? Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 4:38
  • Yes, you can as long as you have permission from the owner of the fork. You can read more about this in the GitHub documentation. Commented Dec 15, 2017 at 7:42