Eventually/soon we'll want to track the changes in the codebases particularly in terms of their approach to software testing. For this we may want to update the code in the local instance based on the changes that have occurred since we previously cloned it. Thankfully git automatically records the history of each instance of a repo and provides mechanisms to perform updates.
Additional thoughts
TBD how sophisticated our analysis needs to be and how much our scripts would want/need to take account of structural and naming changes to the remote repo. For example, if they rename the trunk from master to main? if they use develop as their primary trunk branch, if they rename the repo, or even relocate it to another hosting provider. Commit hashes are probably sufficiently unique to provide a signature of a repo and/or we might decide that scrapping historical data for a repo is more expedient and sufficient for the purposes of our analysis.
Context
One of the scripts src/github_repo_request_local.py clones repos from github.com which then facilitates local analysis.
Eventually/soon we'll want to track the changes in the codebases particularly in terms of their approach to software testing. For this we may want to update the code in the local instance based on the changes that have occurred since we previously cloned it. Thankfully
gitautomatically records the history of each instance of a repo and provides mechanisms to perform updates.Additional thoughts
TBD how sophisticated our analysis needs to be and how much our scripts would want/need to take account of structural and naming changes to the remote repo. For example, if they rename the trunk from
mastertomain? if they usedevelopas their primary trunk branch, if they rename the repo, or even relocate it to another hosting provider. Commit hashes are probably sufficiently unique to provide a signature of a repo and/or we might decide that scrapping historical data for a repo is more expedient and sufficient for the purposes of our analysis.