3 ms·
Couldn't this be done using git branches? A fork seems like a way to unnecessarily complicate the process of eventually merging things. I guess if the goal is
by ysavir 4y ago
Couldn't this be done using git branches? A fork seems like a way to unnecessarily complicate the process of eventually merging things.
I guess if the goal is strictly learning and experimenting, forking makes sense. But that requires an expectation from the start that the project will be scrapped at some point. That each version exists as an exercise and will be discarded afterwards. And that can be a great way to learn; I don't mean to sound like I'm discouraging the idea.
But if there's any intention or hope of making something bigger than the sum of its parts, utilizing it yourself in the future or intending to provide it to others, a flow where you can keep things separate but also bring them together with ease seems more optimal. But I guess learning that will be a forked experience its own right.
- ReactiveJelly 4y agoYeah branching would be better. I think GitHub internally handles forks as branches anyway. I don't know the author or Eric, but I'm speculating they are hobby game devs using Unity and GitHub and they're not very experienced with Git. It may be that Eric wants the projects in separate folders without using `git checkout` to switch between them. But you can do that more easily by cloning the repo within your own system.
- onetom 4y agoBoth the author and Eric Evans are extremely experienced programmers. Forking is to be understood conceptually, not as a terminology of any specific version control system. As in a git branch represents a fork in the time-line of the evolution of a code-base. It just happens to be that fork also means something more specific in case of the GitHub/GitLab online services.