3 ms·

Starring a repo is a way of tracking it. So now there are 55k people who were trying to keep an eye on the project who have silently lost that. It's also an im

Starring a repo is a way of tracking it. So now there are 55k people who were trying to keep an eye on the project who have silently lost that. It's also an important indicator of community size and authenticity, important factors in the decision to use the code.

layer8 5y ago
> silently I’d argue that GitHub should send them a notification that the repo they starred has been made private.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  And another that it was made public again. Or neither, and just not delete shit that there was no need to delete.
  - layer8 5y ago
    My point is that IF they delete everything, they should send a notification to the affected users. When the repository is made public again, then since they deleted the star relation it’s not possible to send another notification.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Unless, of course, if they just changed the column setting from "starred" to "was starred". As they could do. If they cared.
      - layer8 5y ago
        That’s why I wrote “IF they delete everything”. You’re saying they shouldn’t delete everything, which I agree with, but that’s not the case I was addressing.
        ncmncm 5y ago
        OK, sorry.
  - lalopalota 5y ago
    The user said "delete this stuff". GitHub asked, "Are your sure?" User: "Yes". Seems like a good reason to delete it.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      No. The user said, "make it private". That has nothing to do with deleting anything.