[kawsper]

I always thought it would have been better, and less confusing for newcomers, if GitHub had named the default remote “github”, instead of origin, in the examples.

[mckn1ght]

Is this something the remote can control? I figured it was on the local cloner to decide.

Can’t test it now but wonder if this is changed if it affects the remote name for fresh clones: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config...

[tobylane]

If I clone my fork, I always add the upstream remote straight away. Origin and Upstream could each be github, ambiguous.

[pwdisswordfishy]

GitHub could not name it so, because it's not up to GitHub to choose.

[seba_dos1]

There are places where it does choose, but arguably it makes sense for it to be consistent with what you get when using "git clone".

[masklinn]

How is it less confusing when your fork is also on github?

[matrss]

Requiring a fork to open pull requests as an outsider to a project is in itself a idiosyncrasy of GitHub that could be done without. Gitea and Forgejo for example support AGit: https://forgejo.org/docs/latest/user/agit-support/.

Nevertheless, to avoid ambiguity I usually name my personal forks on GitHub gh-<username>.

[grimgrin]

agreed, you'd need a second name anyway. and probably "origin" and "upstream" is nicer than "github" and "my-fork" because.. the convention seems like it should apply to all the other git hosts too: codeberg, sourcehut, tfs, etc