<!--IssueSummary start--> <details> <summary> Everyone can contribute. [Help move this issue forward](https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/developer-relations/contributor-success/community-contributors-workflows/#contributor-links) while earning points, leveling up and collecting rewards. </summary> - [Close this issue](https://contributors.gitlab.com/manage-issue?action=close&projectId=278964&issueIid=291074) </details> <!--IssueSummary end--> ### Release notes <!-- What is the problem and solution you're proposing? This content sets the overall vision for the feature and serves as the release notes that will populate in various places, including the [release post blog](https://about.gitlab.com/releases/categories/releases/) and [Gitlab project releases](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/releases). " --> ### Problem to solve We would like to request a feature/enhancement that revolves around the current Forking process for self managed instances. The current behavior of a Merge request when its created, for a Forked project, is to automatically point back to the originating project, not the fork. This is fine under normal circumstances, but when using multiple instances of GitLab on different networks, this is not the ideal behavior. In a scenario where you have 2 instances of GitLab on different networks, Instance A and Instance B. Instance B is going to have a copy of all the projects from Instance A in a read-only group structure. As projects on instance A are updated, they are going to overwrite the corresponding project on instance B. If changes are needed to a project on Instance B, and the project has originated from Instance A, the Project is Forked into a read/write area on instance B, but it maintains the fork back to the read only project so it can consume any updates that are brought in from instance A. This means that when we create any MR's on this forked project its going to try and create a MR that points back to the read only project. If the Merge Request Default Target project could be configured at the instance/group/project level this would save on some time and confusion for this scenario. As a separate but related issue, when creating an issue on a normal, non-forked project, you have the option to create a MR directly from an issue, and it also creates the corresponding branch in the project. When creating an issue in a forked project, the option to create a merge request from the issue has been removed, i assume that this is due to it being a fork and pointing back to another project as its source. starting from the scenario above; if a project is a fork and it has been configured to point to itself as the default MR target, and not back to the source project, then it would make sense for this button to be re-enabled. ### Proposal Add an option that would allow for the Forked project to behave like a non-forked project (allow for MR to be generated from an Issue and allow for the default target branch to be the default branch in the forked project rather than the project that was forked. ### Intended users This feature would be used by: * [Parker (Product Manager)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#parker-product-manager) * [Delaney (Development Team Lead)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#delaney-development-team-lead) * [Sasha (Software Developer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sasha-software-developer) * [Devon (DevOps Engineer)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#devon-devops-engineer) * [Sidney (Systems Administrator)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#sidney-systems-administrator) * [Allison (Application Ops)](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/#allison-application-ops) <!-- Read the labels descriptions on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/labels to find the appropriate labels. Consider adding related issues and epics to this issue. You can also reference the Feature Proposal Template (https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/.gitlab/issue_templates/Feature%20proposal.md) for additional details to consider adding to this issue. Additionally, as a data oriented organization, when your feature exits planning breakdown, consider adding the `What does success look like, and how can we measure that?` section. Other sections to consider adding: ### User experience goal First iteration could be a setting at the project or instance level ### Further details Include use cases, benefits, goals, or any other details that will help us understand the problem better. ### Permissions and Security <!-- What permissions are required to perform the described actions? Are they consistent with the existing permissions as documented for users, groups, and projects as appropriate? Is the proposed behavior consistent between the UI, API, and other access methods (e.g. email replies)? Consider adding checkboxes and expectations of users with certain levels of membership https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html * [ ] Add expected impact to members with no access (0) * [ ] Add expected impact to Guest (10) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Reporter (20) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Developer (30) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Maintainer (40) members * [ ] Add expected impact to Owner (50) members ### Documentation See the Feature Change Documentation Workflow https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/workflow.html#for-a-product-change * Add all known Documentation Requirements in this section. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/development/documentation/feature-change-workflow.html#documentation-requirements * If this feature requires changing permissions, update the permissions document. See https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/permissions.html ### Availability & Testing This section needs to be retained and filled in during the workflow planning breakdown phase of this feature proposal, if not earlier. What risks does this change pose to our availability? How might it affect the quality of the product? What additional test coverage or changes to tests will be needed? Will it require cross-browser testing? Please list the test areas (unit, integration and end-to-end) that needs to be added or updated to ensure that this feature will work as intended. Please use the list below as guidance. * Unit test changes * Integration test changes * End-to-end test change See the test engineering planning process and reach out to your counterpart Software Engineer in Test for assistance: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/test-engineering/#test-planning ### What does success look like, and how can we measure that? Define both the success metrics and acceptance criteria. Note that success metrics indicate the desired business outcomes, while acceptance criteria indicate when the solution is working correctly. If there is no way to measure success, link to an issue that will implement a way to measure this. ### What is the type of buyer? What is the buyer persona for this feature? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/product-marketing/roles-personas/buyer-persona/ In which enterprise tier should this feature go? See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/pricing/#four-tiers ### Is this a cross-stage feature? Communicate if this change will affect multiple Stage Groups or product areas. We recommend always start with the assumption that a feature request will have an impact into another Group. Loop in the most relevant PM and Product Designer from that Group to provide strategic support to help align the Group's broader plan and vision, as well as to avoid UX and technical debt. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/#cross-stage-features -->