Something I’ve been wondering recently: GitHub recently made private repositories free. (Previously it was a paid-for feature, now you pay if you want >N collaborators. Single-author private repos are free.) How much of that was about avoiding hassle for minorities in tech?
-
Show this thread
-
I put most of my code on GitHub because it’s easy to keep it in one place and I’m used to the tooling. A lot of it is crappy one-shots I wrote for my own use, not proper projects that I’d expect anybody else to use.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Most of those are public – but then, I’ve never had to worry about anybody going through my commit history to question my code or abilities. If that was something that happened to me regularly, I might want to keep it private (or avoid GitHub entirely).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
If you’re a minority in tech who has your abilities questioned, it easier to use GH and keep your projects private. Maybe that makes you more likely to use GH? I doubt that was the only reason for the change, maybe not even deliberate, but I wonder if it’s played out that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Even as somebody who doesn’t get much attention or harassment, I’ve been thinking of making new repos private (and hiding old ones). Actually posting this thread was triggered by recent unpleasantness around one scientist, but I’ve been thinking about it for a while. /thread
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread
FWIW scientists with academic email addresses get all the privileges of a paid up member.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.