I’ve seen some projects on GitHub (howdy being one of them that came to mind) where there are forks, but when I check the forks out they are either unchanged, or are behind by a few commits. I was wondering why this would happen. It couldn’t be for archival purposes, could it?

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Fork repo, make local changes intending to push to fork for PR, never push anything. Very common.

    Also, SO MANY SITES have the button that says “Fork me on GitHub!” that is often wonder if people think it’s something that it isn’t.

  • plm00@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    I’ve forked before when I needed a specific version easily stored somewhere, like a Node package. Or if I intended to make changes but didn’t have write access. Or I wanted to save a repository in a way where I can easily find it in my repo list. But more often than not, I intended to pull down the code and contribute to it but for one reason or another didn’t.

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Following instructions to use GitHub as a blog host. Step one: fork some repo so that I’ve got a copy on my profile.

  • who@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    When looking for activity, are you only checking for the number of commits ahead/behind, or are you also checking for new branches?

    A common workflow is to fork a project, clone it locally, add some work on a new branch, push it to your fork, and then create a pull request from the new branch. None of that will add commits to the default branch.

  • colonelp4nic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    Sometimes I fork to make changes locally, but they’re either me-specific or hacky garbage I don’t want to publish. Because of that, I normally don’t commit those changes, and definitely don’t push to GitHub or make a PR.

  • darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    What do you think that people should be doing instead? What is your own workflow when contributing to projects on GitHub?

    • aloofPenguin@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      I’d do a PR. Although I would understand forking if the project maintainers wouldn’t merge a PR. (or create an issue (for the fix/ addition) if the README says that it’s an option)

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        A PR requires push access… That’s why you create a fork… So you can create a PR from your fork.

      • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        So while you’re working on your PR, where do you push your commits? If you don’t fork, you can’t push them to Github. You don’t have access to the repo you’re making a PR for. That’s exactly why people fork.

        Of course you could just NOT push any commits, but then your commits only exist locally on your development machine, and if you have a hardware failure you’ve lost them, defeating the point of a distributed version control system. Or you could push them to another computer you have access to, but Github lets you push to your own free account for free, so most people would rather just do that. Which they do. By creating a fork.

        Maybe it’s okay if you’re only creating a small PR with a single commit or two. But for more extensive development, anyone reasonable is going to create a fork so they have somewhere to store their work until it’s ready. Once/If the PR is merged, the fork is abandoned as it’s no longer needed. But that’s why they exist.

    • plm00@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      OP is referring specifically to those who don’t contribute but fork anyway.

      • darklamer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        How could anyone possibly know that those people don’t contribute? Why would anyone even try finding that information?

          • tyler@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            that is just people that got their commits in, it doesn’t mean that others didn’t try to contribute, but failed.

  • litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    In my personal workflow, I fork GitHub and Codeberg repos so that my local machine’s “origin” points to my fork, not to the main project. And then I also create an “upstream” remote to point to the main project. I do this as a precursor before even looking at a code on my local machine, as a matter of course.

    Why? Because if I do decide to draft a change in future, I want my workflow to be as smooth as possible. And since the norm is to push to one’s own fork and then create a PR from there to the upstream, it makes sense to set my “origin” to my fork; most established repos won’t allow pushing to a new topic branch.

    If I decide that there’s no commit to do, then I’ll still leave the fork around, because it’s basically zero-cost.

    TL;DR: I fork in preparation of an efficient workflow.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Maybe they planned to make some changes, but never got around to them or at least didn’t get them to work the way they intended.

  • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Maybe some people don’t delete the fork after their PR is done.

    In my case, I found another explanation.

    Sometimes, a random person comes and forks one of my repos. I check their profile, and it’s a techbro student with hundreds of forked repos without any commits. With their bio referencing AI or some shit.

    I’m pretty sure these people fork a lot of repos just to pad their CV or something. Make it look like you have a lot of repos. Because when you go to someone’s profile, it is not clear that a repo is a fork instead of their own creation.

    • tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      When you visit someone’s profile on github it defaults to source. It won’t show forks at all for a ‘normal’ visitor to a profile. You have to explicitly clear the filter to see forks.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        Maybe they changed the defaults. I stopped using GitHub after they trained their AI over private repos.

        But I remember clearly that I was annoyed when looking at my own repos because my forks (for actually doing PRs) would show at the top instead of my own repos.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          It’s been that way for many years, I’d say at least 4 or 5? Long before all this ai nonsense.

  • undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    This reminds me of a legacy Rails 3.2 app that used a fork of the official Ruby on Rails only for one commit that backported some one-liner bug fix. This was at an old job in the Rails 6 days, getting it on the latest official version was definitely an adventure (no unit tests + tons of spaghetti code + a dash of currency conversions stored as Postgres floats).