If nobody has the repo checked out, what are the odds it's important?
Oh boy.
Tons of apps in maintenance mode run critical infrastructure and see few commits in a year.
The people wouldn't, but in the environments I'm thinking of, security policies might.
What you're leaning into is a high-risk backup strategy that would rely mostly on luck to get something remotely close to the current version back online. It's pretty reckless.
In environments that go so far (deleting local checkouts of code out of security concerns), I bet they do have a mirror/copy of the version controlled code.
To step outside just utility programs, the reason why Command & Conquer didn't have a remaster was:
> I'm not going to get into this conversation, but I feel this needs to be answered. During this project of getting the games on Steam, no source code from any legacy games showed up in the archives.
Software still runs, and if you don't have the source then you'll only have the binary or other build artifact.
In fact, in VSCode, one can use a project without cloning and checking it out at all.
By “onto git”, do you mean “onto GitHub”? I really wish people would stop conflating the two.
In fact, I can't tell whether this confusion is just another symptom of, or a (major?) part of the reason for, why we're in the mess we're in.
Just making and committing to a repo at all is a step that implies a certain level of caretaking.