4 ms·
I mean, fair play. If you squat on a username and don't do anything with it for years, having it yoinked seems reasonable. It's not like you paid for it.
by dymk 3y ago
I mean, fair play. If you squat on a username and don't do anything with it for years, having it yoinked seems reasonable. It's not like you paid for it.
- benjaminwootton 3y agoI do actually think this is reasonable. It's really annoying when the handle you want is taken by someone who hasn't used it for years. Two years might be a little short though.
- mbauman 3y agoIt feels a little different if — as it seems to be the case — the GitHub account is used as a static site generator. Heck, the guy could've been depending upon CNAMEing to `rbishop.github.io`.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NotYourLawyer 3y agoWeird not to notify the original owner and give him a chance to respond though.
- fallat 3y agoYeah I think this is the real issue at hand.
- rand_flip_bit 3y ago> It's not like you paid for it. There are individuals that pay ~$4/month for GitHub Teams, plus other services (Copilot, CI, LFS, Packages, etc). They may not have public repos, but that shouldn't matter.
- paulddraper 3y agoYou are talking about something different.
- Ferret7446 3y agoI doubt GitHub is going to close the account of an actively paying user. Rather, the fact that they are paying for it constitutes proof that the account is actively owned.
- funcDropShadow 3y agoWhy did the Github support add an ssh key, though?
- dymk 3y agoAdded to the account after it was transferred to its new owner.
- yencabulator 3y agoWhy would it show up in the Security History events for rbishop-xx, then?