There is a project in Git which I have to modify. What would be the difference between:
-
Make a fork of the project, then do a pull, work local and then push it
-
not fork, just pull, work local and then push
There is a project in Git which I have to modify. What would be the difference between:
Make a fork of the project, then do a pull, work local and then push it
not fork, just pull, work local and then push
The idea of the git is that everything is repository . So "work in local" ( git clone ) means to make a fork of the project (yes, it will only be on your hard drive but it is technically the same as any other repository).
That's why the commits are made locally (unlike SVN or CVS, where the commit is sent to the original server), because you are sending the change to your local "server".
As for making a clone on a server (eg github) or not, it depends on the situation. Obviously if parts of a project of a third person should make your own copy to do push of what you are changing, without having to do pull request that you can refuse. But once you have your repository under your control, the most normal thing is to make new changes as branches .
If what you want to work on is always going to end up as master of the initial project, there is no difference in how you work.
Conceptually, if there is, the use of fork is usually attributed to a complete bifurcation of a project, it is the point where it completely diverges from the origin, usually it is done for example to update projects that are no longer maintained.
So being a purist, if you are going to continue the development but without creating a new project, clone the project directly and work like this, if on the other hand you want to fork it and make another development based on that, it is time to make a fork.