GitHub

Comments and changes to this ticket

• 

  Kevin Ballard March 18th, 2008 @ 08:22 PM

  I agree. This coming weekend I'm going to help a developer move from svn to git, and the easiest way by far would be for me to convert his repo and push it to github and have him fork, but that will leave the relationship backwards.

• 

  Dr Nic March 23rd, 2008 @ 08:29 PM

  I agree. I've been the first to host a git-svn clone of a project, say various TM bundles, but I'd gladly make allan or michael sheets the root repo owner, rather than myself; even though I was first to post the project on github.

• 

  Alex Coles March 24th, 2008 @ 05:48 AM

  Agreed. I think the use case is even stronger for open-source projects, where the project lead my change. I have launched a couple projects on GitHub, that I've wanted to see as a catalyst for development of certain areas of functionality, but I may not be the best person to be the root repo owner going forward.

• 

  Dr Nic March 24th, 2008 @ 05:54 AM

  A more encompassing issue/thought here is that a hierarchy of "who initially forked from who" is ultimately meaningless to the organisation of a team/OSS project after that moment in time. Making the list of who has forks/clones of a repository a flat list would at least remove the potentially flawed visual statement that the first repo is the "owner" repo.

  Perhaps each repo can have its own "fork description" - a one line "my fork is special because...".

  In this description the "owner" could state that they are the owner.

• 

  defunkt March 24th, 2008 @ 11:31 AM

  • → State changed from “new” to “invalid”

  The 'Network' page is going to change soon. The new version will better show which repositories are active and which aren't.

  It's important to remember that hierarchy is distinct from authority. Just because you created a repository does not mean in any way that yours is the most active, maintained, or best.