
For a long time, the docs have generated a huge, static HTML package list. It has some disadvantages: * It's slow to load * It's slow to build * It's hard to search We now have a nice website that can tell us about Spack packages, and it's searchable so users can easily find the one or two packages out of 7400 that they're looking for. We should link to this instead of including a static package list page in the docs. - [x] Replace package list link with link to packages.spack.io - [x] Remove `package_list.html` generation from `conf.py`. - [x] Add a new section for "Links" to the docs. - [x] Remove docstring notes from contribution guide (we haven't generated RST for package docstrings for a while) - [x] Remove referencese to `package-list` from docs.
597 lines
21 KiB
ReStructuredText
597 lines
21 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. Copyright 2013-2023 Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC and other
|
||
Spack Project Developers. See the top-level COPYRIGHT file for details.
|
||
|
||
SPDX-License-Identifier: (Apache-2.0 OR MIT)
|
||
|
||
.. _contribution-guide:
|
||
|
||
==================
|
||
Contribution Guide
|
||
==================
|
||
|
||
This guide is intended for developers or administrators who want to
|
||
contribute a new package, feature, or bugfix to Spack.
|
||
It assumes that you have at least some familiarity with Git VCS and Github.
|
||
The guide will show a few examples of contributing workflows and discuss
|
||
the granularity of pull-requests (PRs). It will also discuss the tests your
|
||
PR must pass in order to be accepted into Spack.
|
||
|
||
First, what is a PR? Quoting `Bitbucket's tutorials <https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/making-a-pull-request/>`_:
|
||
|
||
Pull requests are a mechanism for a developer to notify team members that
|
||
they have **completed a feature**. The pull request is more than just a
|
||
notification—it’s a dedicated forum for discussing the proposed feature.
|
||
|
||
Important is **completed feature**. The changes one proposes in a PR should
|
||
correspond to one feature/bugfix/extension/etc. One can create PRs with
|
||
changes relevant to different ideas, however reviewing such PRs becomes tedious
|
||
and error prone. If possible, try to follow the **one-PR-one-package/feature** rule.
|
||
|
||
--------
|
||
Branches
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
Spack's ``develop`` branch has the latest contributions. Nearly all pull
|
||
requests should start from ``develop`` and target ``develop``.
|
||
|
||
There is a branch for each major release series. Release branches
|
||
originate from ``develop`` and have tags for each point release in the
|
||
series. For example, ``releases/v0.14`` has tags for ``0.14.0``,
|
||
``0.14.1``, ``0.14.2``, etc. versions of Spack. We backport important bug
|
||
fixes to these branches, but we do not advance the package versions or
|
||
make other changes that would change the way Spack concretizes
|
||
dependencies. Currently, the maintainers manage these branches by
|
||
cherry-picking from ``develop``. See :ref:`releases` for more
|
||
information.
|
||
|
||
----------------------
|
||
Continuous Integration
|
||
----------------------
|
||
|
||
Spack uses `Github Actions <https://docs.github.com/en/actions>`_ for Continuous Integration
|
||
testing. This means that every time you submit a pull request, a series of tests will
|
||
be run to make sure you didn't accidentally introduce any bugs into Spack. **Your PR
|
||
will not be accepted until it passes all of these tests.** While you can certainly wait
|
||
for the results of these tests after submitting a PR, we recommend that you run them
|
||
locally to speed up the review process.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
Oftentimes, CI will fail for reasons other than a problem with your PR.
|
||
For example, apt-get, pip, or homebrew will fail to download one of the
|
||
dependencies for the test suite, or a transient bug will cause the unit tests
|
||
to timeout. If any job fails, click the "Details" link and click on the test(s)
|
||
that is failing. If it doesn't look like it is failing for reasons related to
|
||
your PR, you have two options. If you have write permissions for the Spack
|
||
repository, you should see a "Restart workflow" button on the right-hand side. If
|
||
not, you can close and reopen your PR to rerun all of the tests. If the same
|
||
test keeps failing, there may be a problem with your PR. If you notice that
|
||
every recent PR is failing with the same error message, it may be that an issue
|
||
occurred with the CI infrastructure or one of Spack's dependencies put out a
|
||
new release that is causing problems. If this is the case, please file an issue.
|
||
|
||
|
||
We currently test against Python 2.7 and 3.6-3.10 on both macOS and Linux and
|
||
perform 3 types of tests:
|
||
|
||
.. _cmd-spack-unit-test:
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Unit Tests
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
Unit tests ensure that core Spack features like fetching or spec resolution are
|
||
working as expected. If your PR only adds new packages or modifies existing ones,
|
||
there's very little chance that your changes could cause the unit tests to fail.
|
||
However, if you make changes to Spack's core libraries, you should run the unit
|
||
tests to make sure you didn't break anything.
|
||
|
||
Since they test things like fetching from VCS repos, the unit tests require
|
||
`git <https://git-scm.com/>`_, `mercurial <https://www.mercurial-scm.org/>`_,
|
||
and `subversion <https://subversion.apache.org/>`_ to run. Make sure these are
|
||
installed on your system and can be found in your ``PATH``. All of these can be
|
||
installed with Spack or with your system package manager.
|
||
|
||
To run *all* of the unit tests, use:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack unit-test
|
||
|
||
These tests may take several minutes to complete. If you know you are
|
||
only modifying a single Spack feature, you can run subsets of tests at a
|
||
time. For example, this would run all the tests in
|
||
``lib/spack/spack/test/architecture.py``:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack unit-test lib/spack/spack/test/architecture.py
|
||
|
||
And this would run the ``test_platform`` test from that file:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack unit-test lib/spack/spack/test/architecture.py::test_platform
|
||
|
||
This allows you to develop iteratively: make a change, test that change,
|
||
make another change, test that change, etc. We use `pytest
|
||
<http://pytest.org/>`_ as our tests framework, and these types of
|
||
arguments are just passed to the ``pytest`` command underneath. See `the
|
||
pytest docs
|
||
<https://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/how-to/usage.html#specifying-which-tests-to-run>`_
|
||
for more details on test selection syntax.
|
||
|
||
``spack unit-test`` has a few special options that can help you
|
||
understand what tests are available. To get a list of all available
|
||
unit test files, run:
|
||
|
||
.. command-output:: spack unit-test --list
|
||
:ellipsis: 5
|
||
|
||
To see a more detailed list of available unit tests, use ``spack
|
||
unit-test --list-long``:
|
||
|
||
.. command-output:: spack unit-test --list-long
|
||
:ellipsis: 10
|
||
|
||
And to see the fully qualified names of all tests, use ``--list-names``:
|
||
|
||
.. command-output:: spack unit-test --list-names
|
||
:ellipsis: 5
|
||
|
||
You can combine these with ``pytest`` arguments to restrict which tests
|
||
you want to know about. For example, to see just the tests in
|
||
``architecture.py``:
|
||
|
||
.. command-output:: spack unit-test --list-long lib/spack/spack/test/architecture.py
|
||
|
||
You can also combine any of these options with a ``pytest`` keyword
|
||
search. See the `pytest usage docs
|
||
<https://doc.pytest.org/en/latest/how-to/usage.html#specifying-which-tests-to-run>`_
|
||
for more details on test selection syntax. For example, to see the names of all tests that have "spec"
|
||
or "concretize" somewhere in their names:
|
||
|
||
.. command-output:: spack unit-test --list-names -k "spec and concretize"
|
||
|
||
By default, ``pytest`` captures the output of all unit tests, and it will
|
||
print any captured output for failed tests. Sometimes it's helpful to see
|
||
your output interactively, while the tests run (e.g., if you add print
|
||
statements to a unit tests). To see the output *live*, use the ``-s``
|
||
argument to ``pytest``:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack unit-test -s --list-long lib/spack/spack/test/architecture.py::test_platform
|
||
|
||
Unit tests are crucial to making sure bugs aren't introduced into
|
||
Spack. If you are modifying core Spack libraries or adding new
|
||
functionality, please add new unit tests for your feature, and consider
|
||
strengthening existing tests. You will likely be asked to do this if you
|
||
submit a pull request to the Spack project on GitHub. Check out the
|
||
`pytest docs <http://pytest.org/>`_ and feel free to ask for guidance on
|
||
how to write tests!
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
You may notice the ``share/spack/qa/run-unit-tests`` script in the
|
||
repository. This script is designed for CI. It runs the unit
|
||
tests and reports coverage statistics back to Codecov. If you want to
|
||
run the unit tests yourself, we suggest you use ``spack unit-test``.
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Style Tests
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
Spack uses `Flake8 <http://flake8.pycqa.org/en/latest/>`_ to test for
|
||
`PEP 8 <https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/>`_ conformance and
|
||
`mypy <https://mypy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/>` for type checking. PEP 8 is
|
||
a series of style guides for Python that provide suggestions for everything
|
||
from variable naming to indentation. In order to limit the number of PRs that
|
||
were mostly style changes, we decided to enforce PEP 8 conformance. Your PR
|
||
needs to comply with PEP 8 in order to be accepted, and if it modifies the
|
||
spack library it needs to successfully type-check with mypy as well.
|
||
|
||
Testing for compliance with spack's style is easy. Simply run the ``spack style``
|
||
command:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack style
|
||
|
||
``spack style`` has a couple advantages over running the tools by hand:
|
||
|
||
#. It only tests files that you have modified since branching off of
|
||
``develop``.
|
||
|
||
#. It works regardless of what directory you are in.
|
||
|
||
#. It automatically adds approved exemptions from the ``flake8``
|
||
checks. For example, URLs are often longer than 80 characters, so we
|
||
exempt them from line length checks. We also exempt lines that start
|
||
with "homepage", "url", "version", "variant", "depends_on", and
|
||
"extends" in ``package.py`` files. This is now also possible when directly
|
||
running flake8 if you can use the ``spack`` formatter plugin included with
|
||
spack.
|
||
|
||
More approved flake8 exemptions can be found
|
||
`here <https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/.flake8>`_.
|
||
|
||
If all is well, you'll see something like this:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ run-flake8-tests
|
||
Dependencies found.
|
||
=======================================================
|
||
flake8: running flake8 code checks on spack.
|
||
|
||
Modified files:
|
||
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/hdf5/package.py
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/hdf/package.py
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/netcdf/package.py
|
||
=======================================================
|
||
Flake8 checks were clean.
|
||
|
||
However, if you aren't compliant with PEP 8, flake8 will complain:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/netcdf/package.py:26: [F401] 'os' imported but unused
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/netcdf/package.py:61: [E303] too many blank lines (2)
|
||
var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/netcdf/package.py:106: [E501] line too long (92 > 79 characters)
|
||
Flake8 found errors.
|
||
|
||
Most of the error messages are straightforward, but if you don't understand what
|
||
they mean, just ask questions about them when you submit your PR. The line numbers
|
||
will change if you add or delete lines, so simply run ``spack style`` again
|
||
to update them.
|
||
|
||
.. tip::
|
||
|
||
Try fixing flake8 errors in reverse order. This eliminates the need for
|
||
multiple runs of ``spack style`` just to re-compute line numbers and
|
||
makes it much easier to fix errors directly off of the CI output.
|
||
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Documentation Tests
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
Spack uses `Sphinx <http://www.sphinx-doc.org/en/stable/>`_ to build its
|
||
documentation. In order to prevent things like broken links and missing imports,
|
||
we added documentation tests that build the documentation and fail if there
|
||
are any warning or error messages.
|
||
|
||
Building the documentation requires several dependencies:
|
||
|
||
* sphinx
|
||
* sphinxcontrib-programoutput
|
||
* sphinx-rtd-theme
|
||
* graphviz
|
||
* git
|
||
* mercurial
|
||
* subversion
|
||
|
||
All of these can be installed with Spack, e.g.
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack install py-sphinx py-sphinxcontrib-programoutput py-sphinx-rtd-theme graphviz git mercurial subversion
|
||
|
||
.. warning::
|
||
|
||
Sphinx has `several required dependencies <https://github.com/spack/spack/blob/develop/var/spack/repos/builtin/packages/py-sphinx/package.py>`_.
|
||
If you're using a ``python`` from Spack and you installed
|
||
``py-sphinx`` and friends, you need to make them available to your
|
||
``python``. The easiest way to do this is to run:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ spack load py-sphinx py-sphinx-rtd-theme py-sphinxcontrib-programoutput
|
||
|
||
so that all of the dependencies are added to PYTHONPATH. If you see an error message
|
||
like:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
Extension error:
|
||
Could not import extension sphinxcontrib.programoutput (exception: No module named sphinxcontrib.programoutput)
|
||
make: *** [html] Error 1
|
||
|
||
that means Sphinx couldn't find ``py-sphinxcontrib-programoutput`` in your
|
||
``PYTHONPATH``.
|
||
|
||
Once all of the dependencies are installed, you can try building the documentation:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ cd path/to/spack/lib/spack/docs/
|
||
$ make clean
|
||
$ make
|
||
|
||
If you see any warning or error messages, you will have to correct those before your PR
|
||
is accepted. If you are editing the documentation, you should be running the
|
||
documentation tests to make sure there are no errors. Documentation changes can result
|
||
in some obfuscated warning messages. If you don't understand what they mean, feel free
|
||
to ask when you submit your PR.
|
||
|
||
--------
|
||
Coverage
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
Spack uses `Codecov <https://codecov.io/>`_ to generate and report unit test
|
||
coverage. This helps us tell what percentage of lines of code in Spack are
|
||
covered by unit tests. Although code covered by unit tests can still contain
|
||
bugs, it is much less error prone than code that is not covered by unit tests.
|
||
|
||
Codecov provides `browser extensions <https://github.com/codecov/sourcegraph-codecov>`_
|
||
for Google Chrome and Firefox. These extensions integrate with GitHub
|
||
and allow you to see coverage line-by-line when viewing the Spack repository.
|
||
If you are new to Spack, a great way to get started is to write unit tests to
|
||
increase coverage!
|
||
|
||
Unlike with CI on Github Actions Codecov tests are not required to pass in order for your
|
||
PR to be merged. If you modify core Spack libraries, we would greatly
|
||
appreciate unit tests that cover these changed lines. Otherwise, we have no
|
||
way of knowing whether or not your changes introduce a bug. If you make
|
||
substantial changes to the core, we may request unit tests to increase coverage.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
If the only files you modified are package files, we do not care about
|
||
coverage on your PR. You may notice that the Codecov tests fail even though
|
||
you didn't modify any core files. This means that Spack's overall coverage
|
||
has increased since you branched off of develop. This is a good thing!
|
||
If you really want to get the Codecov tests to pass, you can rebase off of
|
||
the latest develop, but again, this is not required.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-------------
|
||
Git Workflows
|
||
-------------
|
||
|
||
Spack is still in the beta stages of development. Most of our users run off of
|
||
the develop branch, and fixes and new features are constantly being merged. So
|
||
how do you keep up-to-date with upstream while maintaining your own local
|
||
differences and contributing PRs to Spack?
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Branching
|
||
^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
The easiest way to contribute a pull request is to make all of your changes on
|
||
new branches. Make sure your ``develop`` is up-to-date and create a new branch
|
||
off of it:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout develop
|
||
$ git pull upstream develop
|
||
$ git branch <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git checkout <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
|
||
Here we assume that the local ``develop`` branch tracks the upstream develop
|
||
branch of Spack. This is not a requirement and you could also do the same with
|
||
remote branches. But for some it is more convenient to have a local branch that
|
||
tracks upstream.
|
||
|
||
Normally we prefer that commits pertaining to a package ``<package-name>`` have
|
||
a message ``<package-name>: descriptive message``. It is important to add
|
||
descriptive message so that others, who might be looking at your changes later
|
||
(in a year or maybe two), would understand the rationale behind them.
|
||
|
||
Now, you can make your changes while keeping the ``develop`` branch pure.
|
||
Edit a few files and commit them by running:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git add <files_to_be_part_of_the_commit>
|
||
$ git commit --message <descriptive_message_of_this_particular_commit>
|
||
|
||
Next, push it to your remote fork and create a PR:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git push origin <descriptive_branch_name> --set-upstream
|
||
|
||
GitHub provides a `tutorial <https://help.github.com/articles/about-pull-requests/>`_
|
||
on how to file a pull request. When you send the request, make ``develop`` the
|
||
destination branch.
|
||
|
||
If you need this change immediately and don't have time to wait for your PR to
|
||
be merged, you can always work on this branch. But if you have multiple PRs,
|
||
another option is to maintain a Frankenstein branch that combines all of your
|
||
other branches:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git co develop
|
||
$ git branch <your_modified_develop_branch>
|
||
$ git checkout <your_modified_develop_branch>
|
||
$ git merge <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
|
||
This can be done with each new PR you submit. Just make sure to keep this local
|
||
branch up-to-date with upstream ``develop`` too.
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Cherry-Picking
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
What if you made some changes to your local modified develop branch and already
|
||
committed them, but later decided to contribute them to Spack? You can use
|
||
cherry-picking to create a new branch with only these commits.
|
||
|
||
First, check out your local modified develop branch:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout <your_modified_develop_branch>
|
||
|
||
Now, get the hashes of the commits you want from the output of:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git log
|
||
|
||
Next, create a new branch off of upstream ``develop`` and copy the commits
|
||
that you want in your PR:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout develop
|
||
$ git pull upstream develop
|
||
$ git branch <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git checkout <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git cherry-pick <hash>
|
||
$ git push origin <descriptive_branch_name> --set-upstream
|
||
|
||
Now you can create a PR from the web-interface of GitHub. The net result is as
|
||
follows:
|
||
|
||
#. You patched your local version of Spack and can use it further.
|
||
#. You "cherry-picked" these changes in a stand-alone branch and submitted it
|
||
as a PR upstream.
|
||
|
||
Should you have several commits to contribute, you could follow the same
|
||
procedure by getting hashes of all of them and cherry-picking to the PR branch.
|
||
|
||
.. note::
|
||
|
||
It is important that whenever you change something that might be of
|
||
importance upstream, create a pull request as soon as possible. Do not wait
|
||
for weeks/months to do this, because:
|
||
|
||
#. you might forget why you modified certain files
|
||
#. it could get difficult to isolate this change into a stand-alone clean PR.
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^
|
||
Rebasing
|
||
^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
Other developers are constantly making contributions to Spack, possibly on the
|
||
same files that your PR changed. If their PR is merged before yours, it can
|
||
create a merge conflict. This means that your PR can no longer be automatically
|
||
merged without a chance of breaking your changes. In this case, you will be
|
||
asked to rebase on top of the latest upstream ``develop``.
|
||
|
||
First, make sure your develop branch is up-to-date:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout develop
|
||
$ git pull upstream develop
|
||
|
||
Now, we need to switch to the branch you submitted for your PR and rebase it
|
||
on top of develop:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git rebase develop
|
||
|
||
Git will likely ask you to resolve conflicts. Edit the file that it says can't
|
||
be merged automatically and resolve the conflict. Then, run:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git add <file_that_could_not_be_merged>
|
||
$ git rebase --continue
|
||
|
||
You may have to repeat this process multiple times until all conflicts are resolved.
|
||
Once this is done, simply force push your rebased branch to your remote fork:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git push --force origin <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Rebasing with cherry-pick
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
You can also perform a rebase using ``cherry-pick``. First, create a temporary
|
||
backup branch:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git branch tmp
|
||
|
||
If anything goes wrong, you can always go back to your ``tmp`` branch.
|
||
Now, look at the logs and save the hashes of any commits you would like to keep:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git log
|
||
|
||
Next, go back to the original branch and reset it to ``develop``.
|
||
Before doing so, make sure that you local ``develop`` branch is up-to-date
|
||
with upstream:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git checkout develop
|
||
$ git pull upstream develop
|
||
$ git checkout <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
$ git reset --hard develop
|
||
|
||
Now you can cherry-pick relevant commits:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git cherry-pick <hash1>
|
||
$ git cherry-pick <hash2>
|
||
|
||
Push the modified branch to your fork:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git push --force origin <descriptive_branch_name>
|
||
|
||
If everything looks good, delete the backup branch:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git branch --delete --force tmp
|
||
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
Re-writing History
|
||
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
||
|
||
Sometimes you may end up on a branch that has diverged so much from develop
|
||
that it cannot easily be rebased. If the current commits history is more of
|
||
an experimental nature and only the net result is important, you may rewrite
|
||
the history.
|
||
|
||
First, merge upstream ``develop`` and reset you branch to it. On the branch
|
||
in question, run:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git merge develop
|
||
$ git reset develop
|
||
|
||
At this point your branch will point to the same commit as develop and
|
||
thereby the two are indistinguishable. However, all the files that were
|
||
previously modified will stay as such. In other words, you do not lose the
|
||
changes you made. Changes can be reviewed by looking at diffs:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git status
|
||
$ git diff
|
||
|
||
The next step is to rewrite the history by adding files and creating commits:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git add <files_to_be_part_of_commit>
|
||
$ git commit --message <descriptive_message>
|
||
|
||
After all changed files are committed, you can push the branch to your fork
|
||
and create a PR:
|
||
|
||
.. code-block:: console
|
||
|
||
$ git push origin --set-upstream
|