Change default base repository for pull requests on forks

[caroso-de]

I've forked a repository which has been archived by the owner, so there won't be any prs accepted to the original repository.
Therefore I'd like to change the base repository for all PRs made from to my repository but this seems not possible.

Is there a recommended way to deal with this situation other than (re)creating the repository without forking?

Thanks a lot!

[rcoup]

More discussion at https://github.community/t/changing-the-default-pr-target-when-creating-a-pr-from-a-fork/2842/2

[lululime]

This is a dead link. However, when I created a fork within an org, the PRs I made in that fork defaulted to the fork, not to the upstream repo for PRs.

@dawaszl and I are both working on this.

[per1234]

Although it seems that GitHub removed all the community discussions that were previously hosted on the github.community Discourse forum when they switched to using GitHub Discussions, I did find an archived copy of the discussion @rcoup referenced on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

It doesn't contain anything of significant value, but I'll share the link anyway in order to save others the time of hunting for the referenced discussion:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200928154342/https://github.community/t/changing-the-default-pr-target-when-creating-a-pr-from-a-fork/2842

[ALNPRA123]

why not to try that ,but i like js system to fix that role rm

[usirg]

GitHub has a default branch setting. The page says:

The default branch is the base branch for pull requests and code commits.

Unless I am missing something, that setting is not respected for PRs on a fork, given that the default branch of the upstream repo seems to be taken as the base branch for the PR.

How about adding a default base repo setting to forks? The two settings could then initially be set as follows:

• default base repo: upstream
• default branch: default branch of upstream repo

When creating a PR, these settings could be used to give the current behavior.

Then users could change the settings to fit their needs.

I'd be happy to learn about any implications I might be missing 😁

[ALNPRA123]

very good sir,good work for this

[johnnyshankman]

this is a great proposal.

[axi92]

Nice 💡

[davestewart]

Or, when the fork is created, users could be prompted which setting to use.

If a forked repo is effectively stale, then perhaps a notification could be shown?

Either way, the best option for the users (rather than the creator) of the original repo would be prioritised.

[jkoutavas]

Has anyone got an update on how to change the base repo?

[ALNPRA123]

no but change repo,i might be lost for a time if i send for my work

[jarupxx]

To change this behaviour you'd have to change the Compare page URL by external add-ons.

https://github.com/<OWNER>/<BASE REPO>/compare/<BRANCH>...<FORK REPO>:<BRANCH>
https://github.com/<YOUR>/<FORK REPO>/compare/<BRANCH>...<FORK REPO>:<BRANCH>

I'm talking a green pull request button.

[slifty]

The current developer experience is really hard to work with -- I've incorrectly opened (and then closed) PRs to upstream several times at this point and I'm going to have to just remove my upstream association which is a real shame. Would love a solution to this for future projects!

[jamesmortensen]

I was wondering if it's possible to mirror the fork and your unassociated repo? Could you still keep in sync with upstream by having an extra layer between your unassociated repo and the fork? I've added multiple upstream entries using git remote add but I am not entirely sure how to do that by default when cloning...

If this works, you could submit pull requests to the unassociated repo, which would default to the unassociated master/main branch. Every now and then, you could theoretically do a git push fork master to sync changes to the fork. Then if you needed to sync the fork, you could then do the reverse and pull upstream changes through the fork.

I've never done this before, but it might be worth exploring.

I have the same problem. I'm maintaining a fork of an upstream repo and we and the upstream team agree that nothing in the fork is intend to merge upstream. But we keep in sync with upstream's new features. I've almost accidentally merged a year's worth of commits into the upstream repo due to the association as a fork.

[ALNPRA123]

git push remote is very harder to get this ,i use base repo for first time,can be use github dekstop to handle that

[jsoref]

@jamesmortensen: technically yes.
https://github.com/new/import will accept github.com urls as sources.

It will create a detached fork and avoids you having to create an empty repository, and then push into it, but it won't make the people here happy.

Syncing isn't particularly hard if you do go down this path, although it does kinda ruin discoverability.

You could do some interesting magic where you:

1. create a fork of the original repository
2. rename it to {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking (you don't have to call it tracking, the idea is to not keep it in {REPO} as you're going to put a real repo there in a moment),
3. use the import feature to create {OWNER}/{REPO} (* this doesn't seem to be exposed by gh)
4. change the metadata on {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking to link (gh repo edit -h "https://github.com/{OWNER}/{REPO}") to it.
5. archive {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking
6. If you wanted to, you could have a script that:
   1. fetches from {UPSTREAM}/{REPO}
   2. unarchives {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking
   3. pushes to {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking
   4. re-archives {OWNER}/{REPO}-tracking
   5. pushes to {OWNER}/{REPO} with a branch of upstream or similar...

[tim-hilt]

Same problem here! Just today I closed a PR just clicks before merging it to master on the wrong repository.

[r-LaForge]

I can attest - this is very annoying.
Would really appreciate a safeguard (changing the default repo / branch) to prevent accidentally spamming upstream.

[ALNPRA123]

branch master is very good answer i very appreciate to github company can handle this

[sebhmg]

same experience here. My solution was finally to create fork form the fork:
upstream <- organization fork <- user fork
This way, pull requests created form the "user fork" are targeting the organization fork, as desired.

[ALNPRA123]

use fork hard but funny respon lol

[nuhasha]

The output of git push -u origin <branchname> that includes the URL that will be used to create the pull request.
After open this URL in browser, and before you click Create Pull Request, first change the base branch to be your forked PR instead of the originally forked PR. then create the pull request.

[slifty]

Yes -- I believe the issue is that last step (having to manually change) is non-ideal and leads to accidental PRs if your default target is going to be the immediate repository rather than upstream. The request is to change the default behavior / value for that dropdown.

[jamesmortensen]

Yeah. Manual steps are error prone and don't scale, and then when you add another collaborator to your fork they have that same dangerous learning curve to overcome.

It is especially dangerous if you're also a maintainer on the upstream repo. I almost accidentally merged in a years worth of commits.

[shakefu]

Why is this not a setting? One of the main use cases for Forking a repository is to take over a project that is out of maintenance - where the previous owner is ignoring all PRs.

Please @github-staff consider just making it a setting so we don't have to click 3 times on every PR to avoid accidentally PR'ing the fork. Thanks.

[MKL-SebastianLoeffler]

PLEASE!!!

[aleclarson]

This is beyond frustrating that Github hasn't fixed this...

[CoenraadS]

This behavior is so frustrating. As a workaround, to detach a repository you can request a ticket here: https://support.github.com/contact?tags=rr-forks&subject=Detach%20Fork&flow=detach_fork

[johnnyshankman]

what's the point of fork'ing if i detach the fork?

insanely slow as it requires customer service, the same one that wont escalate this UX issue nearly 2 years later.

thank you for this though.

[radekg]

Please provide this setting.

[ferminho]

Same situation here, we want to work mainly in our fork and contribute some PRs upstream, so we don't want to detach. We had some accidental PRs already, and it's embarrassing. Please let us configure the default

[vincerubinetti]

I maintain a website template that people fork to use. The fact that the github UI for pull requests defaults to the upstream repo instead of the base repo has caused so many people (including me!) to open accidental PRs (against the template itself instead of their own main branch) that I had to create a label specifically for it (22 and counting):

[ALNPRA123]

oh my god same with me,can be error in long time ago,but github last update can be create me happy lol

[rando2]

Thank you @vincerubinetti, this makes me feel so much better for spamming one of your projects today 😬

[usirg]

This starts to suck. The thread is over a year old and as far as I could see has gotten no reaction from GitHub. There are two aspects to this that make this very annoying: first, it's bothering lots of people and second, as I pointed out in my earlier post, this should be relatively easy to fix.

One option to potentially get some traction with this, is for someone with an appropriate account type (Pro, Enterprise etc.) to open a support ticket and point this out. I've had success doing that with Atlassian but I only have a free GitHub account myself.

[nielsdt-rabobank]

Good suggestion. We do have the same problem and we do have an enterprise license. So I have created a support ticket.

[usirg]

thanks, much appreciated!

[slifty]

Fully agreed -- folks might also consider checking if anybody in their network might happen to work for github and try to escalate internally somehow.

[leite08]

Another one needing this, here - with enterprise license. Also created a support ticket.

[poplexity]

+1 on this, made this mistake for the second time in as many weeks today.

I hope my PRs (both of which were open for less than a minute before I closed them) don't bother the upstream maintainers, they do great work and the last thing I want is to distract them or slow them down... but I move fast and this default setting is awful.

[klondikemarlen]

Since I haven't mentioned this for a while, I made a TamperMonkey script that patches the Pull request url for you automatically.

Repo: https://github.com/klondikemarlen/patch-github-new-pull-request-redirect

You need to add from the raw link at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/klondikemarlen/patch-github-new-pull-request-redirect/main/main.js

[weineran]

@klondikemarlen Thanks for sharing this (again). I have been following this thread for a while, but somehow I missed all of your replies that mention this TamperMonkey script. Maybe consider posting it as a top level comment?

Amusingly, I actually woke up early this morning to start figuring out how I could write a browser extension to fix this issue, but luckily I saw your comment, installed TamperMonkey, installed your script, and...voilà!

[klondikemarlen]

Glad it helped! I think a browser extension would be cooler though? I only installed TamperMonkey to solved this GitHub issue. If you don't end up doing that, I might look into it myself one of these days.

That said turns out TamperMonkey is useful if you want to remove paste blocking that some organizations use to make it harder to use a password manager, and thus a complex password, so maybe I'll keep it around even if GitHub does fix this issue.

[Mihitoko]

+1
Just made this mistake and came here while looking if one can adjust this default.
Would be nice if this is implemented.

[richcarl]

+1.
How is this even a thing? Dammit, GitHub, make this configurable!

[colinvn]

I, too, have created far too many PRs to merge into to owner's original repo when I actually only wanted to merge into my fork. Partiucarly as a newcomer, I found the default quite confusing and am missing an option to change it. Un-forking is not an option in my case. Adding the desktop option to github web or a config setting would be great!

[MishkaMN]

Bumping it up here for support

[oppfiashrocket]

Bumping this for support, there was an excellent proposal
https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/11729#discussioncomment-2774953
please consider this until then, we'll be abandoning forks and detaching.

[matthias-margin]

Really annoying there is no response or better solution for this. We ended up following the instruction on https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/working-with-forks/detaching-a-fork but it comes with some major downsides:

• All in-flight PRs have to be recreated
• All repo settings have to be re created, including rulesets, dependabot settings, access rules, etc
• integrations have to be re-enabled
• what else will we find is not working in the next few days?

ugh 😞

[matthias-margin]

also not sure why they ask to delete the fork when just renaming it works and is safer. You can delete it later after the new repo is confirmed to be working correctly

[wcjord]

Also in need of this!

[cameron-foodini]

Absolutely a needed feature. Bump!

[blooop]

I need this, I accidently spammed upstream 3 times in the last two days...

[mickvangelderen]

I need this. Messed up twice over the last week.

[davestewart]

I just did this with another repo.

Come on GitHub!

[davestewart]

Nice. Which setting?

[maxisam]

[usirg]

And this seems to be in existence since at least 2022. I gave it a try and it seems to work as expected.

Thanks @maxisam for pointing this out!

I'm just astounded that GitHub didn't point this out earlier on this issue, instead of letting frustration grow here.

[davestewart]

Could possibly solve this in the web interface with a chrome extension, but it's such a niche need, and unlikely folks would think to look for it

[weineran]

Could possibly solve this in the web interface with a chrome extension, but it's such a niche need, and unlikely folks would think to look for it

I recently started working on a chrome extension purely to address this niche need. Hope to have it ready soon. Will post on this discussion when it's available.

[PanGan21]

+1 to change this

[davestewart]

And the irony is – GitHub wants to maintain the link to original code, but all this does is push people to bare clone the repo and break the link to the original fork! The very feature they are deaf to implement is the very feature that is fucking over Open Source creators! 🤯

All they need to do is allow fork maintainers to merge by default to their own fork, then at some future juncture, original creators can catch up, and in theory everyone could be happy 😊

[jerometremblay]

If you are going to paste ChatGPT answers, at least try to answer the good question.