xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: GitHub forking has one big flaw
xerxes2001's comments
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Steve Losh's .vimrc
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Pretty-printing JSON and XML on Mac OSX
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Spaceport: Javascript to iOS/Android/HTML5/Flash Framework
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: German Chaos Computer Club analyzes and releases government malware
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Vimroom
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: NASA finds DNA components in meteorites, says they originated in space
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Digging around Github's git database API
xerxes2001 | 14 years ago | on: Which NLP framework do you use?
I think the argument can be made that this is exactly why git is cool. Which repository is considered the "master" repository becomes a "social decision" instead of a technical one (by means of the admin rights). However, GitHub emphasizes the role of the "original" repository by mentioning it everywhere (as pointed out by the author).
In my opinion, it is a fair point to argue that adding a description to forks would be useful. But to say that the GitHub model is fundamentally flawed takes is a step too far for me.
The article also mentions that it would be great to have more options regarding pull requests. This is indeed something that I would also find useful. Maybe there could be the "standard" pull request, but optionally the user could propose a fullow-up action on the pull request!?