4 ms·

This may not be fully reversible: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/managing-repository-settings/setting-r

by hazzjm 2y ago

This may not be fully reversible: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/managing-repository-settings/setting-repository-visibility https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi... "GitHub will detach public forks of the public repository and put them into a new network." "Stars and watchers for this repository will be permanently erased"

OskarS 2y ago
If it's a serious enough issue, GitHub staff can almost certainly still step in and manually restore all that stuff if needed.
- dmezzetti 2y ago
  It's back with 181 stars.
  - wg0 2y ago
    Now probably Github can update the starts in the database with an adhoc query.
  - dmezzetti 2y ago
    They didn't in this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033758
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      That's a foss tool though, elastic is a for profit company and might be willing to pay money to have it restored/might already be a paying GitHub customer. And GitHub might have implemented something that let's them restore it after it wasn't possible before, as it's been 2 yrs since. Lots of possibilities that might change the outcome if elastic is lucky
      - dmezzetti 2y ago
        From the referenced article: "In our case, however, they refuse to do that, citing undesirable side effects and the cost of resources. We even offered GitHub financial compensation for any resources required. But, sadly, they declined. They have other priorities than resurrecting the community of one of the oldest and most popular community projects on their platform." Certainly possible they implemented a way to do this over the last 2 years.
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    Well maybe it’ll take a day or two before they can get someone to restore the stars?
  - birdman3131 2y ago
    https://web.archive.org/web/20241009043953/https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch https://web.archive.org/web/20241009043953/https://github.co... And for those like me who don't pay attention it had 69k stars earlier in the month.
bilekas 2y ago
This is probably the biggest impact, I just wrote on another comment that this didn't seem to be too destructive but it's a bit more of a headache than it seems. > Current forks will remain public and will be detached from this repository. If I'm not mistaken when they are back public again everyone will need to update their origin ?
- morpheuskafka 2y ago
  If you have a local git origin set to the HTTPS URL of the parent repo, I don't think anything would change when it comes back online. This sentence seems to be about GitHub internally treating forked repos as branches of the original repo to save space (as well as displaying "fork of X" in the UI), and there's no way to manually set that relationship other than the fork button. GitHub would have to manually reset that if they wanted to. (This setup is what allows those fake commit URLs where you use the URL of the original repo plus the commit hash of a commit in a fork.)
tecleandor 2y ago
Yep. I just checked and the repo stands at "0 forks" and "194 stars". I don't know if GitHub can undo that somehow.
- orra 2y ago
  ISTM GitHub rolling back such a mistake for a Microsoft repo, but for nobody else.
- dark-star 2y ago
  it's at 24k forks now
gk1 2y ago
Ouch. This is even more painful for small-to-midsize projects whose star counts help distinguish them.

by hazzjm 2y ago

OskarS 2y ago

If it's a serious enough issue, GitHub staff can almost certainly still step in and manually restore all that stuff if needed.

dmezzetti 2y ago
It's back with 181 stars.
- wg0 2y ago
  Now probably Github can update the starts in the database with an adhoc query.
- dmezzetti 2y ago
  They didn't in this case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31033758
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    That's a foss tool though, elastic is a for profit company and might be willing to pay money to have it restored/might already be a paying GitHub customer. And GitHub might have implemented something that let's them restore it after it wasn't possible before, as it's been 2 yrs since. Lots of possibilities that might change the outcome if elastic is lucky
    - dmezzetti 2y ago
      From the referenced article: "In our case, however, they refuse to do that, citing undesirable side effects and the cost of resources. We even offered GitHub financial compensation for any resources required. But, sadly, they declined. They have other priorities than resurrecting the community of one of the oldest and most popular community projects on their platform." Certainly possible they implemented a way to do this over the last 2 years.
- codetrotter 2y ago
  Well maybe it’ll take a day or two before they can get someone to restore the stars?
- birdman3131 2y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20241009043953/https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch https://web.archive.org/web/20241009043953/https://github.co... And for those like me who don't pay attention it had 69k stars earlier in the month.

bilekas 2y ago

This is probably the biggest impact, I just wrote on another comment that this didn't seem to be too destructive but it's a bit more of a headache than it seems. > Current forks will remain public and will be detached from this repository. If I'm not mistaken when they are back public again everyone will need to update their origin ?

morpheuskafka 2y ago
If you have a local git origin set to the HTTPS URL of the parent repo, I don't think anything would change when it comes back online. This sentence seems to be about GitHub internally treating forked repos as branches of the original repo to save space (as well as displaying "fork of X" in the UI), and there's no way to manually set that relationship other than the fork button. GitHub would have to manually reset that if they wanted to. (This setup is what allows those fake commit URLs where you use the URL of the original repo plus the commit hash of a commit in a fork.)

tecleandor 2y ago

Yep. I just checked and the repo stands at "0 forks" and "194 stars". I don't know if GitHub can undo that somehow.

orra 2y ago
ISTM GitHub rolling back such a mistake for a Microsoft repo, but for nobody else.
dark-star 2y ago
it's at 24k forks now

gk1 2y ago

Ouch. This is even more painful for small-to-midsize projects whose star counts help distinguish them.