it would help to get rid of that stupid #github thing where they call clones forks, first of all, and second, to always make it clear that an actual fork, which I assume is what a git bomb is, is in fact the fork, not the original, and that it has been modified, and maybe to allow for relatively simple way to see how it's been modified.
This also avoids the pointless repo clutter of script kiddies 'forking' a repo when all they wanted was to clone it.
Recently, people started to question the workflow Forgejo inherited from GitHub which uses "Forks" in order to contribute to a project. The top alternative is the "AGit" worklfow which has seen recent improvements.
that was good, glad to see this is being looked at. I commented on the thread but I'm not into git, as I note, but just my general views as an end user.
The sad thing is github totally misused the entire concept of forking, which is one of the most extreme actions any project will probably experience, in place of a clone, which is what git calls it, correctly. Thus confusing matters. Calling a clone a clone would go a long way to clear things up. Git branches are a pain, I avoid them.
hexaheximal
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •???
What happened?
Codeberg.org
Als Antwort auf hexaheximal • • •hexaheximal
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •@hexaheximal
Not cool. Y'all deserve better. 🥺
Frank Ring
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •What are git bombs?
People pushing malicious code?
Codeberg.org
Als Antwort auf Frank Ring • • •Exploding Git Repositories
kate.ioFrank Ring
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •smxi
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •it would help to get rid of that stupid #github thing where they call clones forks, first of all, and second, to always make it clear that an actual fork, which I assume is what a git bomb is, is in fact the fork, not the original, and that it has been modified, and maybe to allow for relatively simple way to see how it's been modified.
This also avoids the pointless repo clutter of script kiddies 'forking' a repo when all they wanted was to clone it.
Codeberg.org
Als Antwort auf smxi • • •From Forking to Forging: Designing a modern contribution workflow for the future
Codeberg.orgsmxi
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •that was good, glad to see this is being looked at. I commented on the thread but I'm not into git, as I note, but just my general views as an end user.
The sad thing is github totally misused the entire concept of forking, which is one of the most extreme actions any project will probably experience, in place of a clone, which is what git calls it, correctly. Thus confusing matters. Calling a clone a clone would go a long way to clear things up. Git branches are a pain, I avoid them.
Alex
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •Monti :neofox_flag_ace_256: :blobfoxoutage: :verifiedace:
Als Antwort auf Codeberg.org • • •