Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 294 posts

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#81

Post by remram »

rezonant wrote: post #19
darekkay wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It will only be deleted if the repo you fork from is a private repository. The documentation [1] covers the other scenarios, in all of which you keep your copy of the code (including when the public repository is made private later). [1] https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-...

What if the original is made private and then deleted? Does your fork remain?

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#82

Post by j45 »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #44
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #13

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…

I'm reasonably certain that if YouTube deletes your account uploading them to a new account is expressly forbidden.

I’ve read having a secondary test account to post videos under to pass YouTube scans before posting to the real account helps minimize issues.

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#83

Post by pvaldes »

Totally expected from the minute one after Microsoft buy the vault, earning full control over the software and the people's access to the platform. I will not be surprised at all if some of this closed projects would appear included into closed software under new authors after a year.

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#84

Post by josephg »

capableweb wrote: post #53
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #13

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…

> because I sync’d them to a usb stick with gitea Just a tip: no need to use gitea if you want to replicate a git repository to somewhere else on disk/other disk. Just do something like this: mkdir /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo (cd /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo && git init) git remote add backup /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo git push backup master And now you have a new repository at /media/run/usb-…

Even better with

    cd /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo && git init --bare
Bare repositories don't have a working directory. You can still git clone / git pull from them to get the contents. You can also git push to them without clobbering any "local changes" (there aren't any).

More detail here:

https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/setting-up-a-reposit...

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#85

Post by pavon »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #41
camsjams wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're suggesting GitHub should determine the total "average" license of a private repo and determine if your fork is indeed valid or not, before revoking access.

> So you're suggesting GitHub should determine the total "average" license of a private repo and determine if your fork is indeed valid or not, before revoking access. No, I'm not suggesting that. In fact, I didn't say anything about what GitHub should or shouldn't do. My comment related to how licenses work, not how GitHub works or should work. In particular, I was responding to this comment: > It's not your code or…

You mentioned in another post that the company only released a cleaned up version publicly. That cleaned up code which they published is clearly and unambiguously under the MIT license. Any other modifications that were made and not published (including any you made in your fork as an employee) are not automatically licensed as MIT. Your employer holds the copyright to that. They might be fine with those internal changes being released as MIT or they might not, but it is up to them.

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#86

Post by kaushikc »

nobody9999 wrote: post #61

I completely understand your frustration. It's a dick move to delete your content without (at least) giving you a chance to archive that work. At the same time this situation points up an important issue: if you don't own/control the infrastructure where your data lives, you don't own that data. Full stop. If you host your data "in the cloud" (i.e., on someone else's servers ) then you don't own that data, or at leas…

It's simple! Maintain the control and the capability to retrieve your important data at all times. The internet is a wild place and everything you don't save could potentially be gone forever.

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#87

Post by dabber »

capableweb wrote: post #53
zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #13

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…

> because I sync’d them to a usb stick with gitea Just a tip: no need to use gitea if you want to replicate a git repository to somewhere else on disk/other disk. Just do something like this: mkdir /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo (cd /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo && git init) git remote add backup /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo git push backup master And now you have a new repository at /media/run/usb-…

You can even take it a step further and have a push to origin update your backup as well.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/14290145

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#88

Post by nobody9999 »

kaushikc wrote: post #86
nobody9999 wrote: post #61

I completely understand your frustration. It's a dick move to delete your content without (at least) giving you a chance to archive that work. At the same time this situation points up an important issue: if you don't own/control the infrastructure where your data lives, you don't own that data. Full stop. If you host your data "in the cloud" (i.e., on someone else's servers ) then you don't own that data, or at leas…

It's simple! Maintain the control and the capability to retrieve your important data at all times. The internet is a wild place and everything you don't save could potentially be gone forever.

>It's simple! Maintain the control and the capability to retrieve your important data at all times.

An excellent point, but I'd go further and say that one should maintain multiple copies of important data, with at least one of those on hardware/infrastructure you control and have physical access to.

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#89

Post by ntrz »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #80
kitkat_new wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This unfortunately makes sense because it is a private repo." I disagree. I expect a (i.e. my) fork to be independent of the original repository, no matter if it is private or not. It's enough if a fork of a private repository is private then too.

This is why I don't use github's fork feature. There's more than just this restriction they impose upon you. Instead I prefer to use a "git" fork. I just clone it and upload it to my own repo. Assuming the license permits of course.

Don't you need to have an "GitHub-approved" fork (i.e. use the GitHub fork button) if you want to create pull requests on the upstream project in GitHub? Or is there a way to do that from the kind of repo you're describing?

Re: Tell HN: GitHub will delete your private repo if you lose access to the original

#90

Post by capableweb »

josephg wrote: post #84
capableweb wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because I sync’d them to a usb stick with gitea Just a tip: no need to use gitea if you want to replicate a git repository to somewhere else on disk/other disk. Just do something like this: mkdir /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo (cd /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo && git init) git remote add backup /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo git push backup master And now you have a new repository at /media/run/usb-…

Even better with cd /media/run/usb-drive/my-backup-repo && git init --bare Bare repositories don't have a working directory. You can still git clone / git pull from them to get the contents. You can also git push to them without clobbering any "local changes" (there aren't any). More detail here: https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/setting-up-a-reposit...

Yeah, better in terms of saving space, but I think it confuses some people, hence I didn't use it in my above example. Previous time I recommended a co-worker to use the `push to a directory` way of copying a git repository, I made them create a bare repository, and they ended up going into the directory to verify it worked and not seeing what they expected. Cue me having to explain the difference between a normal repository and a bare one. It also confused them into thinking that a bare repository isn't just another git repository but a "special" one you can sync to, while the normal one you couldn't.

So in the end, simple is simple :) Unless you're creating remote repositories at scale, you probably won't notice a difference in storage usage.

Post reply on HN