An upstream PR cannot use a fork branch as its base, even with write access to both repos
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
Valutazione
- Difficoltà
- 5/5
- Tempo stimato
- Più di una settimana
- Idoneità per principianti
- 35/100
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia riproducendo il comportamento tra fork con gh stack submit e gh stack link --remote, quindi esamina le issue correlate #46, #496 e #509 per verificare i vincoli esistenti. Il lavoro è completato quando uno stack con un singolo fork può puntare a upstream, incluso l’aggiunta di un layer a una PR tra fork già aperta, preservando il normale comportamento delle autorizzazioni e della review.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Descrizione
Problem
Stacked PRs require every branch in a stack to live in the same repository — the docs state: "Stacked pull requests require all branches to be in the same repository. Cross-fork stacks are not supported."
This is not a permissions problem. I have write access to both the upstream repository and my fork. The blocker is the fork boundary itself: even with full access on both sides, a stack cannot start in a fork and land in upstream.
The workflow that does not work
- Fork
upstream→origin. - Create
feature-aand push it toorigin. - Open a PR:
origin:feature-a→upstream:main. This works today — it is an ordinary cross-fork PR. - Stack
feature-bon top offeature-a, push it toorigin. - Now I want that second PR to join the stack of the PR from step 3, in
upstream.
Step 5 has nowhere to go:
- A PR opened in
upstreammust have a base ref that exists inupstream. There is no way to express "base =origin:feature-a" for a PR that lives inupstream, so the upper layers of the stack have no home in the repository where the stack needs to be reviewed. - Opening
origin:feature-b→origin:feature-ainstead puts that PR in the fork's PR list, split off from the step-3 PR. The two are not one stack, and upstream reviewers never see the layering.
So the stack I want is:
PR #3: origin/feature-c → origin/feature-b ┐
PR #2: origin/feature-b → origin/feature-a ├─ one stack, reviewed in upstream
PR #1: origin/feature-a → upstream/main ┘
and this cannot be created, in either repository.
Incremental stacking on an already-open PR
The second half of this is just as important: the stack is usually not planned up front. I open a single cross-fork PR first, keep working, and only later realize the next change belongs on top of it.
So it should be possible to take an already-open cross-fork PR (origin:feature-a → upstream:main) and attach a new layer to it afterwards, turning it into the bottom of a stack — rather than having to decide at creation time that this PR will be stacked, or having to tear down and recreate the existing PR.
Why this matters
Forking is not only the OSS drive-by contribution path — it is also a normal way to work when you do have access on both repositories: keeping topic branches out of the shared repo, working across an org boundary, or simply following a project's convention that all branches live in personal forks.
Right now the two features are mutually exclusive. If branches live in a fork, stacked PRs are unavailable; to use stacked PRs, every branch has to be pushed into upstream directly. That forces a choice between the fork-based branch layout and the ability to present work as reviewable layers.
For scale, from Octoverse 2025: 63% of all repositories on GitHub are open source or public, and 518.7M pull requests were merged across public and open source repositories in 2025 (+29% YoY). Every project whose branches live in forks is currently outside the reach of stacked PRs.
Proposed behavior
Allow a stack whose branches all live in a single fork, with the bottom-most PR targeting upstream:
origin/feature-a → upstream/main
origin/feature-b → origin/feature-a
origin/feature-c → origin/feature-b
treated as one stack in the upstream repository, with the existing permission and review model unchanged — each PR is still an ordinary cross-fork PR reviewed and merged by upstream — and no change to the underlying Git branch model.
Supporting stacks that span multiple forks (basing work on another contributor's open PR) would be a reasonable later step, but single-fork → upstream covers the common case.
Related reports
The request has come up repeatedly, and has been acknowledged, but has not shipped:
- #18 (discussion, 2026-04-13) — "Stacked PRs with branches across forks", opened the day the private preview started: "without this it's not very useful yet."
- #46 — "FR: support for cross-fork stacked PRs" (2026-04-16). @skarim replied on 2026-04-17: "support for Stacked PRs across forks will be coming in a future update! ... it is a high priority for us and on our roadmap", describing the single-fork → upstream shape as the first step. Repeated +1s and ETA requests since, with no further update.
- #509 (2026-09-13) —
gh stack submiton a fork still fails on v0.1.1, resolving the stack against the upstream parent instead of the fork:Head sha can't be blank, Base sha can't be blank, ... Head ref must be a branch.gh repo set-default <fork>does not change it. - #496 —
gh stack link --remote <fork>queries the fork's parent repository. - community#201439 — the public preview announcement thread, where several people raised cross-fork support as the blocking gap.
Five months after the roadmap confirmation, the v0.1.0 (2026-07-29) and v0.1.1 (2026-09-02) release notes contain no cross-fork work, and reports against the current release are still arriving (#509, two days ago).
I am filing this separately from #46 because the existing threads frame cross-fork stacking as an access problem for contributors who cannot push to upstream. The case above is reproducible with write access to both repositories, and it also covers attaching a stack to a cross-fork PR that is already open — which I did not see raised elsewhere. Happy for this to be folded into #46 if you would rather track it there.
Ask
Where do cross-fork stacks currently sit on the roadmap, and is there a target release for the single-fork → upstream case? Happy to test a preview build.
- Lingua principale
- Go
- Stelle
- 1.5k
- Fork
- 73
- Merge medio
- 1g 8h
- PR unite (30g)
- 7
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Altre issue di github/gh-stack
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 85/100
-
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 92/100
-
feature request topic: cli - general
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 68/100
-
feature request topic: auto-merge
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 68/100
-
bug topic: docs
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 68/100
Tutte le issue di github/gh-stack
Issue simili
-
area/dev-productivity area/disaster-recovery area/ipcei kind/enhancement
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 70/100
-
Difficoltà 1/5 Meno di un'ora Idoneità per principianti 85/100
-
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
-
kind/bug status/0-triage
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
-
🤔 refinement needed
Difficoltà 2/5 1-3 ore Idoneità per principianti 75/100
equinor/radix-operator#1979 ·