4 ms·

Consider detaching your GitHub repo as a fork of tilt-brush. Whenever I come across a fork on GH, my first assumption is that the fork is aiming to be merged b

Consider detaching your GitHub repo as a fork of tilt-brush. Whenever I come across a fork on GH, my first assumption is that the fork is aiming to be merged back into the main repo in the future, and my second assumption is that the maintainers of the fork have less of an interest in the project than the original project’s maintainers. It’s a signal of lower quality IMO. You should keep mention of the original project in your docs, but I personally don’t think it’s necessary to keep the repo as a fork. You can use the GitHub virtual assistant to request this: https://support.github.com/request/fork https://support.github.com/request/fork I am pretty sure that issues, PRs, stars, and everything should be preserved, but don’t take my word for it.

andybak 4y ago
That's a really interesting idea. There would be costs - We'd potentially be less discoverable for people forking the original. I'd have another place to check for interest potential forks (and therefore contributors). I'll give it some thought.
- cookiecaper 4y ago
  It's probably a good idea because some GitHub browser extensions will automatically hide forks from search results, under the assumption that basically all "forked" projects are drive-by patchjobs. I'm not sure this is stopping anyone who would be useful to OpenBrush, but maybe it is. Another good reason to defork is that, as we saw with the youtube-dl fiasco, there are some non-software-related reasons that MS may feel inclined to offline the entire fork tree. That'd be the bigger concern for me.