4 ms·
Judging the Stupidity of GitHub Projects by Stars and Forks
- gus_massa 11y agoThe metric is interesting, but it would be helpful to choose a friendlier name (or an euphemism). Perhaps this is related to how difficult is to install the tool. It looks like most tools used by programmers have a <30% coefficient. The strange part is that git has almost a 50%. PS: MariaDB is sorted in the wrong place.
- alexc05 11y agoI really didn't like the unwelcoming label of "stupidity" You wonder why tech work gets the reputation of being unwelcoming to women? It's because of posts like this... Truth is, it is often wildly unwelcoming to everyone. I've forked plenty of repos without starring them or getting listed as an actual contributor. I forked entityframework (core) last night for example. I'm playing with the idea of writing a MySQL provider. Will it ever get pushed or rolled back in? Unlikely. I'll never be listed as a contributor. But is that stupid? Forking was what I wanted to do in this case. I can push into MY EF repo without issuing PRs. It's really low cost too (in all of time, effort, money virtually nil) "stupid" isn't just the wrong word, it's a "jerk" word to use.
- gus_massa 11y agoGood use case. I actually have one fork to do some experiments like using https://nightli.es/ https://nightli.es/ . For the type of project, it doesn't make sense to put the automating testing in the original repository. Perhaps the author can update the metric to count only the repositories without original commits. (But it looks much more complicated than the original work.)
- moneypenny 11y agoThis post is the stupid thing. There's plenty of other reasons people fork repos, such as being able to have a safe copy of the code in case the original is removed (happens all the time). Extrapolating errors from behaviour is stupid.