There are a lot of instances where that may not be practical. The maintainer may be indisposed or may be even passed away. Perhaps we shouldn’t attach too much significance to the name. Instead, make projects more discoverable and get creative with the names.
The forks could just change their name, so they’re more easily found. For example mRemote got pretty much abandoned, so mRemoteNG got created.
Or people give forks better names. For example, I’ve forked some dotnet6 project, and called the fork {project}-dotnet8 - then when people look thought the fork list on github, it’s not 20 forks all with the same name
yeah though if there are many forks, can’t do without using some scripting. Hence I believe you should hard fork if you feel really serious about carrying on a project and/or at least link it in an issue on the original repo
I mean, LOAF was a thing (Linux on a Floppy) that had basic functionality even as most distros were downloaded or on CD. I can't imagine anyone still develops it, though.
Still bizarre to hear this. It’s like they think the CEOs are gonna write a prompt. “Link customer data to visualization” and it’s gonna preemptively collect the info and then create useful insight for their future products which will then be made by the AI
programmer_humor
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.