I found the author's apparent belief that Git and Github are the same thing extremely annoying.
Github is a parasite.
Github is a parasite.
> the quality of the tech that is Git is a testament to GitHub being able to make it this far in the tech space
But in reality, Github makes Git more complex, because now you have to understand the concept of forks. Not only is there your local copy and an origin, there is a 3rd repository in play.
I'm having trouble coming up with many that would be compelling enough to make that change, especially once you consider bad-faith actors in there (eg, I can't flood your git repo with my nonsense, because my code doesn't exist in your repository until the PR is merged)
I spend too much time doing archaeology to support squashed PRs, which eliminates a few alternatives I might otherwise suggest.
I believe this is how most Git repos are managed within organizations. I'm not sure why public repos need to require users to fork things to propose changes.
And isn't this basically how Github works internally anyways? (eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882921)