Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

How should open source forks, with a mix of upstreamable and non-upstreamable commits, be maintained?

+3
−0

I have a few different projects that rely on open source technology that I wish to make modifications to (say, to add key features for business or personal use) that will vary between upstreamable (the upstream fork would be interested in the feature) and non-upstreamable (the upstream repository has vocally been against the idea, but I still need it or want it for my own projects.)

Ideally, I would like to be able to keep my branch up to date with the latest changes. Currently, I maintain a branch (named akin to personal/version_num) which I rebase against upstream's version_num tag. This works fine, but it suffers some issues and becomes a bit of a maintenance burden. Specifically, it's hard to account for merge requests that have already been "factored in" to upstream on rebase. Additionally, every version update feels like a partial history rewrite (as rebasing causes all of our internal commits to come to the top of the log, while all upstream commits are below even if they were authored "after" the commits above.)

What is the ideal way to have this process mostly automated (where conflict-free rebasing is possible)? If you are familiar with other companies that have to maintain branches in a similar manner, do you have any advice for ways to organize forks that might have commits that are both upstream candidates and also non-upstreamable (but still open source)?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

1 answer

+4
−0

The ideal way is to separate the upstreamable and non-upstreamable changes.

For example you could maintain two branches: public and private. All upstreamable changes are cherry picked to public and this is what you send back to the upstream. All your non-upstreamable changes would be in private.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »