3 ms·

Hiding the repo is hardly a bandaid. It should never be exposed even if the repo is perfectly secret-free. Except in the rare cases where it is intentional e.g

Hiding the repo is hardly a bandaid. It should never be exposed even if the repo is perfectly secret-free. Except in the rare cases where it is intentional e.g. an open source repo and you happen to want people to download it from the same domain not github or git.domain.com.

akerl_ 11y ago
Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Presumably, for most commercial entities, the parts of the site that are valuable are the assets, which are served from the site as part of it doing the thing it's meant for. For a large percentage, they're running a CMS like Wordpress or Drupal or whatever, where the codebase is public anyways. And for even more, we're talking about a directory of hand-crafted HTML files, where the version control is the HTML of the site plus some "damn, I always forget to close my tags" commit messages.
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  > Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Because there is no need to expose it. If you expose it then you need to vet not only it's head but it's entire history, and for what purpose? > For a large percentage, they're running a CMS like Wordpress or Drupal or whatever I doubt someone running Wordpress would be using version control anyway. Most of the time it is WP + some standard plugins and no custom coding. > And for even more, we're talking about a directory of hand-crafted HTML files And anything else you happened to have in your directory. Your passwords file? Even if you commit a delete there is still history!
- simplyluke 11y ago
  > Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Because for a non-trivial number of websites their codebase is their IP and product and not something they want to be public. I'm all for open sourcing as much as possible, but Google doesn't publish their search algorithms for a reason.

3 ms·

Hiding the repo is hardly a bandaid. It should never be exposed even if the repo is perfectly secret-free. Except in the rare cases where it is intentional e.g

by bbcbasic 11y ago

akerl_ 11y ago
Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Presumably, for most commercial entities, the parts of the site that are valuable are the assets, which are served from the site as part of it doing the thing it's meant for. For a large percentage, they're running a CMS like Wordpress or Drupal or whatever, where the codebase is public anyways. And for even more, we're talking about a directory of hand-crafted HTML files, where the version control is the HTML of the site plus some "damn, I always forget to close my tags" commit messages.
- bbcbasic 11y ago
  > Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Because there is no need to expose it. If you expose it then you need to vet not only it's head but it's entire history, and for what purpose? > For a large percentage, they're running a CMS like Wordpress or Drupal or whatever I doubt someone running Wordpress would be using version control anyway. Most of the time it is WP + some standard plugins and no custom coding. > And for even more, we're talking about a directory of hand-crafted HTML files And anything else you happened to have in your directory. Your passwords file? Even if you commit a delete there is still history!
- simplyluke 11y ago
  > Can you elaborate on why it shouldn't be exposed? Because for a non-trivial number of websites their codebase is their IP and product and not something they want to be public. I'm all for open sourcing as much as possible, but Google doesn't publish their search algorithms for a reason.