Then how come Github shows you the photocopying page, sometimes for quite a while? It takes long enough to convince me it does more than set a pointer.
> Very early on we figured out that actually forking people’s repositories was
not sustainable. For instance, there are almost 11,000 forks of Rails
hosted on GitHub: if each one of them were its own copy of the repository, that
would imply an incredible amount of redundant disk space, requiring several
times more fileservers than the ones we have in our infrastructure.
I don't know, but since GitHub allows you to show commits from any fork with a URL referencing another fork, GitHub seems to use a common object store for all forks.
Maybe setting up the separate issue tracker and Pull Requests takes some time?
I wouldn’t say unnecessary; most available comment systems are either a Discuss-style firehose of tracking scripts, or a pain to maintain when self-hosted.
12 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadI tried to post a comment but I didn’t really want to fork your repo, is there no other way of doing it thru github’s api?
It is a little wasteful to fork the whole repo to make a comment. But it seems unavoidable with this design.
https://github.blog/2015-09-22-counting-objects/
> Very early on we figured out that actually forking people’s repositories was not sustainable. For instance, there are almost 11,000 forks of Rails hosted on GitHub: if each one of them were its own copy of the repository, that would imply an incredible amount of redundant disk space, requiring several times more fileservers than the ones we have in our infrastructure.
Maybe setting up the separate issue tracker and Pull Requests takes some time?