Restore their stars! Restore their stars!
We lost 54k GitHub stars
581–590 of 697 posts
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#582> The problem is that the box looks exactly the same for repos with no commits and stars and for repos with a decade-long history and 55k stargazers and watchers. And it says “Warning: this is a potentially destructive action.” It seems a bit much to expect the website to show you a warning of different levels of severity depending on the stars a repos has, particularly when the standard message is pretty severe and…
> It even makes you type the name More and more IT systems are starting to do this for more and more tasks. I understand why: it's a hell of a lot easier than implementing a trashcan, timed undo, joining in helpful data, etc, but man, one good session with a couple hundred resources that need to be deleted this way is enough to burn you out pretty hard on these. Also, systems that go for these lazy solutions tend als…
When doing such massive changes it may be worthwhile to consider using the API (requires some coding, but still faster then typing in the repo names)
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#583> The problem is that the box looks exactly the same for repos with no commits and stars and for repos with a decade-long history and 55k stargazers and watchers. And it says “Warning: this is a potentially destructive action.” It seems a bit much to expect the website to show you a warning of different levels of severity depending on the stars a repos has, particularly when the standard message is pretty severe and…
I’m wondering if you got a chance to see this part of the post: > […] I obviously had no intention to make httpie/httpie private. So, why then? > > The proximate cause was that I thought I was inside a different repo; […] What I actually intended to do was to hide the HTTPie organization’s profile README, […] > > What put me on the wrong path was an otherwise completely unrelated action: I had just done the same (i.e…
I did read that part. He or she had to exactly type out "httpie/httpie" to confirm the action. I don't know what else GitHub could do to prevent this. How much handholding does GitHub need to offer? People need to accept the consequences of their own actions. The amount of manual steps necessary to take httpie private is fairly substantial. This person was careless and learned a lesson on being careless.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#584Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m wondering if you got a chance to see this part of the post: > […] I obviously had no intention to make httpie/httpie private. So, why then? > > The proximate cause was that I thought I was inside a different repo; […] What I actually intended to do was to hide the HTTPie organization’s profile README, […] > > What put me on the wrong path was an otherwise completely unrelated action: I had just done the same (i.e…
I did read that part. He or she had to exactly type out "httpie/httpie" to confirm the action. I don't know what else GitHub could do to prevent this. How much handholding does GitHub need to offer? People need to accept the consequences of their own actions. The amount of manual steps necessary to take httpie private is fairly substantial. This person was careless and learned a lesson on being careless.
Where do you see that they didn't accept the consequences of their own actions? They just wish it were different/better.
There's no harm in that, and Github being used by millions of developers is a strong reason to make it just a little bit safer for even the rarer cases like these.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m wondering if you got a chance to see this part of the post: > […] I obviously had no intention to make httpie/httpie private. So, why then? > > The proximate cause was that I thought I was inside a different repo; […] What I actually intended to do was to hide the HTTPie organization’s profile README, […] > > What put me on the wrong path was an otherwise completely unrelated action: I had just done the same (i.e…
I did read that part. He or she had to exactly type out "httpie/httpie" to confirm the action. I don't know what else GitHub could do to prevent this. How much handholding does GitHub need to offer? People need to accept the consequences of their own actions. The amount of manual steps necessary to take httpie private is fairly substantial. This person was careless and learned a lesson on being careless.
I don’t see the need for moralizing. They took responsibility, and offered GitHub money to help. They aren’t leaning in heavily to blame Github here.
It’s fine to express the gulf of evaluation and execution that led to the error. It happened. There may not be any better known solutions at the moment to lower the risk any further.
Calling them careless is also unjustified. They made a mental error processing the information. Whenever humans are involved there is a risk of illogical and bizarre mental errors in decision making because we are degenerating meat robots granted full agency.
Shit happens. How we emotionally deal with it is the test of life as a human being.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#586Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest you read "The Field Guide to Understanding 'Human Error'". You'd learn a lot. https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Understanding-Human-Error... My view is that expecting humans to stop making mistakes is much less effective than fixing the systems that amplify those mistakes into large, irreversible impacts.
This idea - fixing systems that amplify mistakes into large, irreversible impacts-- is why I am against alcohol, marijuana and other mental-state altering drugs for recreational purposes. (I'm not talking about people who really need pain relief from cancer, amphetamines for ADHD, etc.) If no one in the world drank, smoked pot, or did drugs, how much better off would we all be? 100,000 deaths come from alcohol use ev…
I think that do-gooders who have a "Great New Idea" for how to make society better are 1000x more dangerous than any type of drug ever invented. People drunk on alcohol mostly fall asleep harmlessly. People drunk on power and how awesome their own ideas are launch prison-industrial complexes, dystopian enforcement schemes, wars, genocides, etc.
It may be an even worse drug. People on drugs mostly have some awareness that their ideas aren't very good. But for those drunk on power, the fact that their same great idea has already been tried and led to total disaster is no cause for concern at all. You see, they're obviously smarter and better than the last batch of power-addicts who tried that, so they'll do it right this time. Heaven help us if we ever discovered a chemical intoxicant that was capable of making people that deluded.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#587> But it doesn’t include anything specific to break you out of your auto-pilot mode if you’ve confused the address and think you’re looking at an empty house.
Destruction is destruction. I think a huge red notice should be enough to stop you from dozing off. I understand your pain, but I don't think that any of this is GitHub's fault. They can't read your mind, and they can't tell if you're feed up with OSS or just irresponsible.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop. You've said the same thing a dozen times in this thread. Besides being repetitive, you're overlooking the obvious fact that having associations from non members of private repos to those repos is problematic. At the very least at the UI level, maintaining known dead internal links is bad form. So you'd be creating edge cases for the UI and probably numerous places deeper in the tech stack as well. Which is fine…
Mmh? Maybe it's because I've never touched frontend professionally in my life, but I think that if you're doing it in the UI you're doing it VERY wrong. This logic should be purely in the DB model or very close to it. In any case the internal API should never ever list private repos of an organization a user isn't a member of, period. Stars or no stars. Follows or no follows. Why should it? There's no corner case her…
Fair point. My intent was to point out the UX would be broken. But you're right, the data model that backs that UX is what would have to change.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#589Surprising amount of people blaming the user here. I agree completely with the author, the UX should be different for clearly "big" repos.
How big is "clearly big"? Whenever someone makes the same mistake with a slightly-less-big repository should the warning thresholds be revised to also show up for those?
It should just show the amount of stars / watchers for any repository. I don't think a custom strategy based on repo size is needed.
Re: We lost 54k GitHub stars
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m wondering if you got a chance to see this part of the post: > […] I obviously had no intention to make httpie/httpie private. So, why then? > > The proximate cause was that I thought I was inside a different repo; […] What I actually intended to do was to hide the HTTPie organization’s profile README, […] > > What put me on the wrong path was an otherwise completely unrelated action: I had just done the same (i.e…
I did read that part. He or she had to exactly type out "httpie/httpie" to confirm the action. I don't know what else GitHub could do to prevent this. How much handholding does GitHub need to offer? People need to accept the consequences of their own actions. The amount of manual steps necessary to take httpie private is fairly substantial. This person was careless and learned a lesson on being careless.
Funny thing is that I have never typed in a repo to delete. I always just copy/paste from the message. It's probably what the repo owner did. Perhaps Github should generate an image instead of using text that can be copied. That way they could help mitigate the copy/paste problem.