Question

I’m using several GitHub repositories. The procedure I’ve been using so far, is to fork the original repository, and then clone my branch. If I make some changes, I just push them into my remote branch.

My concern is: In the projects I probably won’t make any modifications/commits, should I fork the original project and clone my branch, like I have done before, or clone the original one? And what if those projects involve a bunch of files which have to be customized (thus, my local project is different from the original one)?

Answer 1

It doesn’t really matter.

If you think you won’t make any changes, you can safely clone the original repository directly, which has the benefit that you can directly update your local clone via git pull. Once you realize you want to make changes you can fork it on github and add the fork as an additional remote.

On the other side if you think you will make changes to the remote you can fork it. Once you realize that you were wrong and you don’t need to make changes, add the original repository as remote and remove the fork.

I for myself prefer to always add both the fork and the original one as remote, thus I can update my local clone via (e.g.) git pull original master and after that I can update my fork with git push origin (origin is my private fork here. The names doesn’t really matter either). If I don’t need the fork or don’t need it anymore, I get rid of it. If I need it (again), I (re-?)create it.

As a sidenote: You don’t need a fork on github to make changes, because your local clone is a full repository too and if it’s sufficient to keep your changes there, it’s ok.