4 ms·
Not all forks are equal, but GitHub shouldn't treat them differently regardless if they are they are the original fork or not. The only exception is if the for
by zbowling 15y ago
Not all forks are equal, but GitHub shouldn't treat them differently regardless if they are they are the original fork or not.
The only exception is if the fork contains no changes of it's own and could be fast-forward merged into the fork you are viewing. (They do this already in the graph they render under the network view.)
- billpatrianakos 15y agoI think GitHub should treat them differently. Maybe you and I are browsing projects that see completely opposite patterns of creation, forking, and upkeep. I said somewhere here before that the original is usually the best, most reliable, and useful to more people than most others. When I see a list of forks I do browse a few but always end up at the master and the master is usually the best one for me. If I had to pick one day to do things I'd keep them as is. But having some sort of filtering mechanism where we can sort by hierarchy, activity, most recent commit, and others would be absolution that makes everyone happy. I wonder how feasible that is. And again, I have to defend you against this rambling attack... This was a blog post, not a book submitted for publishing, not a thesis paper, not scientific research - it was a personal blog and you've got your own writing style like all of us do. You stated a position, gave examples, supported your arguments and I'd say that maybe you could have gotten to certain points sooner or maybe not. It doesn't matter. If some people can't be bothered to read a little bit then they can just move on to another post and not bother to go around insulting people who are just sharing a thought. Don't take shit from people, man.