This is how GitHub has always worked, and it's been documented the entire time. Forks are not just copies of other repos which go on to get their own history (or lack thereof) from that point on. They are linked to the parent repo, and share its visibility. If the parent repo goes private, so does the fork, for example. There's a parent-child relationship that GitHub creates when you fork a repo using the "Fork" butt…
"If the parent repo goes private, so does the fork, for example."
not true
"GitHub will detach public forks of the public repository and put them into a new network. Public forks are not made private."
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 doesn’t make any sense to me. My private forks are * mine* and I most certainly do not want GitHub guessing at whether and when to permanently delete them without my consent. Companies of course have the right to manage access to their proprietary source code, for example by only giving access to corporate accounts under their control and reclaiming those accounts when an employee leaves.
> My private forks are mine
Your employment agreement disagrees. Blame the confusion on the blurry line GitHub draws between forking work repos into personal accounts.
This doesn’t make any sense to me. My private forks are * mine* and I most certainly do not want GitHub guessing at whether and when to permanently delete them without my consent. Companies of course have the right to manage access to their proprietary source code, for example by only giving access to corporate accounts under their control and reclaiming those accounts when an employee leaves.
> My private forks are mine Your employment agreement disagrees. Blame the confusion on the blurry line GitHub draws between forking work repos into personal accounts.
Did you forget the part where this code is MIT-licensed? Yes, they don't own it, but the code is still 'theirs' to keep forever as they see fit.
A few weeks ago, youtube changed their swearword policy. A creator I follow basically had to delete half their channel or risk termination.
They're not banning channels based on swearwords (yet, anyway). They are demonetizing videos with swearing - in the first bit, if too much, maybe other rules, but nobody is getting banned from saying 'shit'.
If you don't want monetization, is swearing in your videos to avoid your subscribers having to watch ads a viable strategy?
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…
> 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. We've known about this for many years!! And yet we for many varied reasons choose to make use of services anyway!! That doesn't mean we shouldn't get to complain about those services and giving people shit for that is really weird!!
This is an endless rabbit hole though, unless and until, I guess, this gets regulated into a law that makes cloud service providers accountable for the data stored under the user accounts they provide, or something along those lines. Until then, you can (rightfully!) complain about one thing, but then the next feature of the next service you use may again have similar issues.
I'm not sure why people are defending Github on this issue, what if the original repo was a template or something, and your thousands of lines of code is gone because the original template repo removed you as a contributor. If I copy something, I expect where I copied it from to have exactly zero bearing on what happens to my copy. If they have a problem they can serve legal documents, giving everyone time to figure…
This only applies to private repositories. Do not put templates up as private repositories, and do not use forks when consuming templates. That is not what forks are for.
I'm getting a sense like something is not right at GitHub, maybe it's just a coincidence but just in the last week I saw GitHub breaking their CI (causing many runs to fail due to a billing bug), then the checksum tarball issue and now this.
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 doesn’t make any sense to me. My private forks are * mine* and I most certainly do not want GitHub guessing at whether and when to permanently delete them without my consent. Companies of course have the right to manage access to their proprietary source code, for example by only giving access to corporate accounts under their control and reclaiming those accounts when an employee leaves.
> Companies of course have the right to manage access to their proprietary source code, for example by only giving access to corporate accounts under their control and reclaiming those accounts when an employee leaves.
This is how it should be done, but is too much overhead for many "IT as a cost centre" companies.
> 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. 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…
A few weeks ago, youtube changed their swearword policy. A creator I follow basically had to delete half their channel or risk termination.
I'm not sure why people are defending Github on this issue, what if the original repo was a template or something, and your thousands of lines of code is gone because the original template repo removed you as a contributor. If I copy something, I expect where I copied it from to have exactly zero bearing on what happens to my copy. If they have a problem they can serve legal documents, giving everyone time to figure…