Proper attribution and restoration of Git history

[rafalh]

I am the creator of Dash Faction, a project I spent several years developing. This repository consists of more than 90% of the original Dash Faction code, now restructured as a standalone library.

While I am glad to see the code being made reusable, I noticed that this repository was created as a fresh upload rather than using the GitHub fork function. This has resulted in the loss of the entire Git history and contributor record. In the open-source community, preserving the git blame history is the primary way to maintain the integrity of a project and ensure that years of original development are properly credited.

Requested Resolution

To respect the original development history and align with standard open-source community etiquette, I request the following:

• Restore Git History: Please recreate this repository in a way that preserves the full commit history (carrying over the original Dash Faction history). You can do this by:

  • Forking Alpine Faction (which already contains the full history).

  • Alternatively, if you prefer not to have a direct GitHub fork link, simply push the entire Git history from your local clone to this repository.

• Explicit Attribution in README: I request that you add my full name (Rafał Harabień) to the README as the original author.

For example:

This project is a standalone library derived from Dash Faction, originally authored and developed by Rafalh (Rafał Harabień). It was branched from the Alpine Faction fork.

Why this matters

Maintaining git history isn't just a technicality; it’s about the integrity of the project. It allows the community to see the context of the code and ensures that original authors receive the credit they earned through years of work.

I expect this to be corrected so that the project properly reflects its origins and remains in good standing with the community.

[GooberRF]

Thanks for your note, and I will start by being absolutely clear that in no way was this repo intentionally structured to remove your name or minimize your contributions.

With regard to your requested resolution:

• Forking Alpine on github was not a practical option when this repo was originally created - Alpine was at that time, itself a github fork of Dash, so Ridgeline would have had to have been a branch of Alpine, which is just a really bad, messy, and confusing way of handling an entirely separate project. If github allowed multiple forks of the same project, I would have gone this route without question.
• simply push the entire Git history from your local clone to this repository - This may just be as a result of my lack of deep familiarity with git/github, but I was not aware this was practically an option. I will not have time to do so for the next few weeks, but after that I will look further into this. From your description it sounds like a good option, thanks for this information.
• Explicit Attribution in README - Both the readme and licensing info file of course already contain references to Dash as a project, but I will certainly add explicit reference to your name. In retrospect, even though it is not required by MPL 2.0, it is something I should have done from the start. My apologies on that.

I chose the approach that I did for this project because to my understanding it was the only practical way to properly comply with the terms of MPL 2.0 without having to maintain a fundamentally separate project as a branch under an existing unrelated project.

[GooberRF]

I have updated README.md accordingly. As I said, I will further investigate your other suggestion in the near future when I have some more time. Thanks again!

[rafalh]

Thanks for your understanding. It's perfectly fine to me to postpone it few weeks.

Forking Alpine on github was not a practical option when this repo was originally created - Alpine was at that time, itself a github fork of Dash, so Ridgeline would have had to have been a branch of Alpine, which is just a really bad, messy, and confusing way of handling an entirely separate project.

Do I understand it right there was no option in GitHub to fork a fork? Now that you disconnected Alpine Faction from Dash Faction on GitHub it should be possible to fork Alpine Faction through GitHub UI and then disconnect from Alpine if desired.
I'm concerned that pushing of entire history from Git may not preserve all the metadata GitHub has like linking commit authors to GitHub users, because Git only preserves user name and e-mail address. Of course it would still be much better than no history at all.

[GooberRF]

Do I understand it right there was no option in GitHub to fork a fork

To the best of my understanding, yes that is correct. For example, I already have a fork of your rf-reversed repo, and when I try to fork my fork, I am unable - I would need to do it through an organization or such, because I already have a repo on my account forked from that repo:

I don't know why github works this way... but apparently it is the way.

Either way, yes, as you say, it should be practical for me to fork Alpine, now that its upstream connection has been severed, and do it that way (then sever the upstream connection from Ridgeline to Alpine in the future if it became necessary). It would mean losing the history of the existing Ridgeline repo, but that is extremely small at the moment, so no real loss there - this would probably be the best approach.

[rafalh]

I don't know why github works this way... but apparently it is the way.

My understanding of this screenshot is that you try to make a fork named GooberRF/rf-reversed and it already exists. You need a different organization/owner (part before "/") OR a different repository name. It looks like it may be possible to fork it as GooberRF/rf-reversed2. Are you trying to fork rafalh/rf-reversed or GooberRF/rf-reversed?

I tried to create a fork of one of my forked repos, but no matter if I click Fork from my fork page or from upstream repo page, I always get this message:

So it seems I can't have multiple forks of one repo.
Perhaps you have some paid version of GitHub or something is different for US/CA users...

It would mean losing the history of the existing Ridgeline repo, but that is extremely small at the moment, so no real loss there

It is possible to preserve this history too. Git is extremely flexible when you know the right commands. AI could help you with that. But it may not be worth the hassle.

[GooberRF]

My understanding of this screenshot is that you try to make a fork named GooberRF/rf-reversed and it already exists. You need a different organization/owner (part before "/") OR a different repository name. It looks like it may be possible to fork it as GooberRF/rf-reversed2. Are you trying to fork rafalh/rf-reversed or GooberRF/rf-reversed?

It needs a different owner, not just repo name:

The above is when attempting to fork GooberRF/rf-reversed. When I attempt to fork rafalh/rf-reversed, the behaviour is virtually identical, just the text changes:

Perhaps you have some paid version of GitHub or something is different for US/CA users...

I think it is only appearing different for me because I am a member of some organizations that could fork the repo (ie. I do have available destinations for a new fork, just my account is not one of them because it already has one). I have a feeling that if I were not a member of those organizations, I'd be seeing the same as you.

[rafalh]

It needs a different owner, not just repo name:

Wow, that's quite confusing. Especially that it says "repository already exists".

I think it is only appearing different for me because I am a member of some organizations that could fork the repo (ie. I do have available destinations for a new fork, just my account is not one of them because it already has one). I have a feeling that if I were not a member of those organizations, I'd be seeing the same as you.

Makes sense. I don't think I had access to other organizations, when I made this screenshot.

[GooberRF]

Wow, that's quite confusing. Especially that it says "repository already exists".

100% agreed - github's handling for forks is less than ideal in a few ways. Another good example is that the owner of a fork for some reason has no ability to change the default PR merge target away from upstream master. This is what led me to erroneously create PR #353 in your Dash repo - I forgot to manually change the merge target before creating the PR (as I had needed to do for all previous PRs I entered specific to Alpine). Ultimately, that very annoying element of the workflow was really the only reason I decided to sever the upstream connection between Alpine and Dash.