4 ms·

having a “clone of a fork of what you originally made” is almost more interesting. the fork is already one hoop more than should be needed, so this adds one fo

having a “clone of a fork of what you originally made” is almost more interesting. the fork is already one hoop more than should be needed, so this adds one for an unknown reason. cloning doesn’t even indicate intent to contribute - just desire to have a copy of code for yourself. which, it’s his code, so, why…

BossingAround 3y ago
Tell me you don't contribute to OSS without telling me you don't contribute to OSS :)) Clone of a fork is necessary to open PRs when you don't have the permission to contribute to the main repository.
- byteknight 3y ago
  Tell me you don't read everything without telling me you don't read everything. That doesn't answer why he would clone a fork of his project and not just contribute to the main project
  - Timon3 3y ago
    Because the project got taken over by Canonical. The README states why it was forked, and contributing to a community-led version of a project swallowed by a commercial entity makes a lot of sense to me.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      what’s interesting is just that, the big name is contributing. not leading. at least not officially. at least not yet. this is a signal, an unusual one worthy of hn.
  - birdyrooster 3y ago
    Because they don’t want their repo cluttered with PR branches. It’s maybe not obvious, but in a public project anyone could branch and submit a PR which leads to a mess. This is how it’s done in many large companies as well, not just OSS. It saves you from scratching your head wondering if deleting this year old feature branch is actually throwing good work out. The news is that this person is working on the project, this clone is evidence of that.
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - BossingAround 3y ago
    There was no judgement in my statement, just a simple joke, because everyone who contributes to OSS must make their own local fork for the reason I specified (and this is inherently utterly baffling and confusing to newcomers, who often barely grasp branches)

BossingAround 3y ago

Tell me you don't contribute to OSS without telling me you don't contribute to OSS :)) Clone of a fork is necessary to open PRs when you don't have the permission to contribute to the main repository.

byteknight 3y ago
Tell me you don't read everything without telling me you don't read everything. That doesn't answer why he would clone a fork of his project and not just contribute to the main project
- Timon3 3y ago
  Because the project got taken over by Canonical. The README states why it was forked, and contributing to a community-led version of a project swallowed by a commercial entity makes a lot of sense to me.
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    what’s interesting is just that, the big name is contributing. not leading. at least not officially. at least not yet. this is a signal, an unusual one worthy of hn.
- birdyrooster 3y ago
  Because they don’t want their repo cluttered with PR branches. It’s maybe not obvious, but in a public project anyone could branch and submit a PR which leads to a mess. This is how it’s done in many large companies as well, not just OSS. It saves you from scratching your head wondering if deleting this year old feature branch is actually throwing good work out. The news is that this person is working on the project, this clone is evidence of that.
catchnear4321 3y ago
[flagged]
- BossingAround 3y ago
  There was no judgement in my statement, just a simple joke, because everyone who contributes to OSS must make their own local fork for the reason I specified (and this is inherently utterly baffling and confusing to newcomers, who often barely grasp branches)