#5993 Merge requests should update when new commits are pushed to the fork

unreleased
open
nobody
General
nobody
2015-03-07
2013-03-20
Dave Brondsema
No

It might work well to store the downstream (fork) information as a symbolic branch name instead of a commit hash, and then resolve that at runtime, so it always includes the latest commits on that branch.

Adding a comment to the merge request thread (which would also send out an email) about the new commits would be nice too, but probably a lot more work.

Related

Tickets: #7836

Discussion

  • Dave Brondsema
    Dave Brondsema
    2014-04-01

    This ticket is the opposite situation now.

    Some time ago, we used to store commit hashes on the merge request, but that didn't allow for new commits to show up. Now we store symbolic references so new commits do show up, but we have the problem of completed requests not showing anything (because there is no diff between branches any more). So we need some combination approach. For example, store both symbolic names and hash values on the merge request, and update them whenever needed (automatically? manually?)

     
  • Dave Brondsema
    Dave Brondsema
    2015-02-18

    You can click on the edit link for a merge request (if you have access, of course) and re-save it and that will update the merge request to include new commits.