Update CONTRIBUTING.md #158
Conversation
This is to address #153
| `git clone https://github.com/YourAccount/popgenInfo.git` | ||
| Note: the https protocol is easier to follow, but it's possible to use ssh as well ([details here](https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/#step-2-create-a-local-clone-of-your-fork)). | ||
| 5. Add the NESCent repository to upstream with | ||
| `git remote add NESCent https://github.com/NESCent/popgenInfo.git` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a strong reason to name the remote NESCent? The convention is upstream, which is also used in the Github tutorial that's referenced. The name NESCent also IMHO is is tied more to the current location of the repository than needed - that the repo is under the NESCent organization is more circumstantial than required for the functioning of the whole workflow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You have a good point. I can change this easily, but it will also mean that I will also need to change the git2r vignette and inform our collaborators to rename their remote upstream.
I will make further commits.
changed remote name from NESCent to upstream as per convention
| 4. On the command line, clone the repository to your machine using | ||
| `git clone https://github.com/YourAccount/popgenInfo.git` | ||
| Note: the https protocol is easier to follow, but it's possible to use ssh as well ([details here](https://help.github.com/articles/fork-a-repo/#step-2-create-a-local-clone-of-your-fork)). | ||
| 5. Add the NESCent repository to upstream with |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you mean as instead of to? Otherwise, the notion of adding a repository to upstream sounds odd to me.
|
Aside from some nitpicking 😄 I think this is ready to merge! |
|
Then I shall merge it as many of the nits have been picked! |
This is to address #153
I decided to create a formal pull request since @smanel had shown that she approved the changes in #132 (comment)