Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by auslegung | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

auslegung

It would be a shame if thousands of people forked the listed repos and gists…

View on HN

They're all taken down already. Forks are a̶u̶t̶o̶m̶a̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ manually enumerated by the DMCA'er and removed

There's one really good reason why you don't want centralized source code control handed off to some US corporation.

You don't need to put "US" there, government/corporation overreach is a thing in every country.

Most countries couldn't care less about imaginary US property. The US forces them to care via trade agreements.

Indeed, but they DO care about THEIR imaginary property, and because of that they usually don't need to be forced to enter those trade agreements as you seem to believe.

Most countries start to care very quickly after the US calls them and discuss matters.

Any centralization is fragile. Github is more fragile than what is possible, but there is little point on improving that.

Git is decentralized. You can download a repo from anyone else who has it provided they expose those files to the internet.

Obviously. But that doesn't mean that you know where those other people are without some central place to communicate that, say a 'git hub'. There is a reason Github was served with these DMCA notices: it's a very effective choke point.

I know this is a silly hypothetical but say I forked it and then gutted the fork and built my own unrelated project in the repo. GitHub would delete my project that contains zero offending material?

yes. (afaik github forks of a repo really all point to the same repo internally)

This is only true if you use the fork button. You can easily create a new repo, clone the old repo, and push to the new repo. GitHub will not show a fork relationship between the two.

true, I assumed that from the question, because otherwise it wouldn't be a fork in any way if the history has been deleted.

I think he just means to create the repo like normal and push your fork there as opposed to creating a fork using the fork button.

Even if the history is exactly the same, GitHub only tracks forks made through the fork button. A true git fork (eg anonymous clone, push to brand new repo, preserving all commit history) is not tracked.

... yes, that's what you already said?

Based on your comment I thought you only thought it applied when you deleted the history, just wanted to clarify.

Your hypothetical project would not contain zero offending material. It's all still in the .git/ folder, in various forms that can be recovered.

Even with a force push that zeros history?

I'm not really sure. Try it, then take a look at reflog and see what's still referenced. Check the size of the .git/ directory as well - is it smaller? There are some ways to rewrite history in git, but until git GCs I believe that they are mostly non-destructive.

I'm sure that you could rm the .git/ and overwrite it but keep it pointing at the same repo. I don't know what would happen on the remote, though, when you push.

Nope. If you remove the history too, then the content is gone.

For good measure, you should also probably run a `git gc` (garbage collect) on the repo too, just to be sure. :)

I was under the impression that you could 'rewrite' history if you wanted by amending, squashing, and removing commits? Or does some of the artifacts still live on?

Until Git garbage collects, it's all still there (mostly). Sure there are some extraordinarily destructive things like `rm .git/` that you could do, but even if you point a new repo at remote it might not accept the merge (push).

Github’s “fork relationship” is not stored in .git/ in any way.

No, but the github server is configured as remote for anything checked out from Github. And I don't know how the remote will handle a merge (push) from a repo with rewritten history.

It could not be "recovered" by git in any way.

GitHub's takedown notice template says otherwise: "Have you searched for any forks of the allegedly infringing files or repositories? Each fork is a distinct repository and must be identified separately if you believe it is infringing and wish to have it taken down."

> Forks are automatically removed

Not from my computer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com