4 ms·

A possible workaround? Fork a private repo. Make it public, thus forcing a new repository network to be made. Then take it private again if you choose. In t

by fouc 9y ago

A possible workaround? Fork a private repo. Make it public, thus forcing a new repository network to be made. Then take it private again if you choose. In the case of a public fork, it seems you're safe from it getting taken out from you. (relatively speaking)

Someone1234 9y ago
The fact you have to do this to make a fork, fork, is problematic. You could also download the fork, and then upload it again as a new root, but in both cases it entirely defeats the point. A lot of people are coming up with workarounds or blindly defending Github in this thread. I think I'm the only way that sees this decision was done for commercial reasons ($), and has nothing to do with people "maintaining control of their private repo." Frankly if fork doesn't, you know, fork due to some quirk in some random article you aren't going to read or find that to me is a massive black mark against Github. That's all I care about, Github working like Git, in most major ways.
- ben509 9y ago
  `I think I'm the only way that sees this decision was done for commercial reasons ($)...` Is it fair for me to expand "for commercial reasons" as: Github is a for-profit business, and their business model is to provide a service to users and that also requires them to be able to turn that service off when customers stop paying. `... and has nothing to do with people "maintaining control of their private repo."` I disagree here, I think you're using a notion of "control" that is too narrow. A notion that captures the scope better would be that Github is adding value by enabling project management and collaboration. The ability to do pull requests, manage issues, etc. is all tied to forking. That's what makes their service worth paying for, and it's also what they have to turn off if you don't want to pay. `That's all I care about, Github working like Git, in most major ways.` What you're saying here is reasonable enough I expect you can find providers that are pretty close to that standard, and it's a fair point that Github's business model has some sharp edges. In this case, it's a consequence of "we turn the lights off if you don't pay," and an alternative has to deal with the same bottom line.
avian 9y ago
Forks of a private repo can't be made public through the GitHub web interface.

by fouc 9y ago

Someone1234 9y ago

The fact you have to do this to make a fork, fork, is problematic. You could also download the fork, and then upload it again as a new root, but in both cases it entirely defeats the point. A lot of people are coming up with workarounds or blindly defending Github in this thread. I think I'm the only way that sees this decision was done for commercial reasons ($), and has nothing to do with people "maintaining control of their private repo." Frankly if fork doesn't, you know, fork due to some quirk in some random article you aren't going to read or find that to me is a massive black mark against Github. That's all I care about, Github working like Git, in most major ways.

ben509 9y ago
`I think I'm the only way that sees this decision was done for commercial reasons ($)...` Is it fair for me to expand "for commercial reasons" as: Github is a for-profit business, and their business model is to provide a service to users and that also requires them to be able to turn that service off when customers stop paying. `... and has nothing to do with people "maintaining control of their private repo."` I disagree here, I think you're using a notion of "control" that is too narrow. A notion that captures the scope better would be that Github is adding value by enabling project management and collaboration. The ability to do pull requests, manage issues, etc. is all tied to forking. That's what makes their service worth paying for, and it's also what they have to turn off if you don't want to pay. `That's all I care about, Github working like Git, in most major ways.` What you're saying here is reasonable enough I expect you can find providers that are pretty close to that standard, and it's a fair point that Github's business model has some sharp edges. In this case, it's a consequence of "we turn the lights off if you don't pay," and an alternative has to deal with the same bottom line.

avian 9y ago

Forks of a private repo can't be made public through the GitHub web interface.