It's not an issue with either, they are both working "as intended". Both examples are storing data in git's object database. Git and GitHub clone the object dat

It's not an issue with either, they are both working "as intended". Both examples are storing data in git's object database. Git and GitHub clone the object databases as fully as they can. To keep the objects "live" in the database both examples use non-standard git refs. Git's raw object DB format was designed to be extensible so it supports non-standard refs that don't reflect (aren't reflected in) high-level git concepts (such as branches and commits). Because these examples use such non-standard refs there's not a standard UI for them in GitHub. It's probably not a great idea to use or rely on non-standard refs in general because it may conflict with other tools or future git capabilities, even if there were a "standard UI for unknown refs".