INFOX
INFOX copied to clipboard
FORCOLAB-UofT
active unmerged fork missing
https://github.com/DouglasPearless/Smoothieware
https://github.com/Smoothieware/Smoothieware/compare/edge...DouglasPearless:feature/file-panel
I didn't find this fork: Did I do sth wrong?
Hah, it's old version don't crawler the code this repo. And this version find it "don't update from then", so not crawl again... It's a history problem. Already fixed it and refresh this repo.
Hello & thanks for publishing this tool :-)
I'm afraid this issue is still present (or again), compare katrinleinweber/poPR with poPR-test:branch.... There definitely is unmerged code, but the INFOX dashboard says "Forks containing unmerged code: 0", also for non-test, real-world repos like swcarpentry/git-novice.
Hi katrinleinweber,
Thanks for reaching out to us! Actually, it is a little surprise for me.
The problem is that so far we only compared fork with upstream on master branch. In your case, it is branch-2-without-PR in poPR-test which we haven't analyzed indeed. We had already noticed this problem before. It is a little bit heavy (or slow) for server to compare on all branches. But we are actively considering a suitable solution to implement this feature since it is very necessary for developers. Though INFOX is a prototype from academic, but we are willing to make it as useful and solid as we can.
Thanks, Luyao
Thanks for explaining :-) I hadn't considered the possibility that it only checks master, and overlooked https://github.com/luyaor/INFOX/issues/143, sorry!
Please definitely consider supporting gh-pages as well or generally whichever default_branch is configured for a repo, and also changes in non-code files like .md. This would make your tool very useful for maintainers of for example lesson material like in The Carpentries.
[…] little bit heavy (or slow) for server to compare on all branches
In that test repo I mentioned, I worked on a small heuristic to narrow that problem down: remove branches for which a PR is open, and also all non-diverging ones. I'm hoping this reduces the comparison load sufficiently.
Cool! Thanks a lot for your suggestion! I will definitely check with it and add it in the next turn of development.