11–20 of 294 posts
I think this is under the assumption of "employee has a private fork of the company repo, then leaves, employee should not keep the fork" So when "removed as a collaborator" which apparently includes the original being deleted, you lose access to the main repo and all forks, even yours. As if leaving a company.
This is documented at: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
If the YouTube algorithm nukes your account and all your videos, you should be ready to upload them to a new account. Same with anything else digital.
My current is standard is one copy in AWS S3 which is super reliable but too pricy for daily use, and one copy in Cloudflare R2 or Backblaze B2 which might or might not be reliable (time will tell) but is hella cheap for daily use.
This is documented at: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...
If the original code was "open source", then why exactly was it in a private repository? Putting "MIT licensed open source" into a private repository is not publishing that source code for the world to use.
It sounds like nothing weird happened here other than this company thinking a private repository was "publishing it as open source".
git remote set-url origin
The new remote can even still be on GitHub. So what’s the point? Anyone relying on this to retroactively remove access to source code has a false sense of security.
I have a number of git repos that the original developers deleted - because I sync’d them to a usb stick with gitea. I think that is how you have to do it - never entrust a service, especially a free one, with your only copy of anything you value. If the YouTube algorithm nukes your account and all your videos, you should be ready to upload them to a new account. Same with anything else digital. My current is standar…
Do you know if this is a common occurrence?
Also, I'm only a YouTube viewer and am not familiar with all the creator tools, problems, communities, etc. But would a creator really re-upload all their back-catalog if deleted? Just to try to get back to views and things?
This is documented at: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...
That's why I usually don't use the official "fork" feature, but clone and push the repository manually instead. I would like to keep the fork network connection on Github, but I don't want to see my fork deleted because of an error, malice or simply lack of knowledge.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...
I have to assume that the original repository was private when you forked it. If it was public, and then made private, then this should not happen. If the original code was "open source", then why exactly was it in a private repository? Putting "MIT licensed open source" into a private repository is not publishing that source code for the world to use. It sounds like nothing weird happened here other than this compan…