“The implication here is that any code committed to a public repository may be accessible forever as long as there is at least one fork of that repository,” the report’s authors claim.
Am I dumb or is this exactly the purpose of forks? I feel like I’m missing something.
What did they research? The git and GitHub documentation, and then the manual on clickbaiting? The shit people publish as research these days to boost their profile…
The concern is that branches and commits that are not otherwise publicly visible become visible, thanks to the way Github handles forks.
I find the language of the article a little confusing, too. But I’m a noob when it comes to GitHub. I have a couple of private projects that I’ve never shared, so not sure if this applies to me or not. We also plan on transitioning to GitHub at work. It’s always smart to assume nothing ever gets truly deleted from an internet service.
If you only ever keep your repository private AND it is not a fork of a public repo, then you are fine. Full stop.
If you ever fork the repo and make a “INTERNAL” private fork but move the main project public then anything you commit to the private fork will be discoverable through the public project.
Basically you should assume if you make a repo public then the repo and all of its forks will be public-- even if the forks are “private” the commit data can be found through the main repo.
deleted by creator
Here’s a link to an earlier discussion on this topic: https://lemmy.ml/post/18368342
if it was never public/forked i guess it’s alright…?
